How Do You Track Your "Published Reviews" ?

Is there any way to tell whether you've already posted a Published Review to a particular book without clicking on each book's work page? There doesn't seem to be any way to add a Published Review field to your customized "Your Library" display.

On your "Home" tab under "Helpers" you can see the number of overall Published Reviews you've posted, but not which specific books. Also, are Published Reviews Common Knowledge or not? Thanks in advance for any info!

If you've reviewed a book, the "review" symbol on the right in your catalog view will be darkened. (It's the rectangle with a tail and a number after it; the number is the number of reviews the book has received.)

Are you referring to your reviews, or the "Published reviews" field (which is like it says, for reviews that are from publications) on the work page? The latter are not part of CK but do belong to the work page, not your own data; the former are not CK either but do belong to your own data.

Yes, I'm talking about "Published Reviews", excerpts from professional sources. What lilithcat wrote above is true only of the Member Reviews that you write yourself. You are able to click on Member Reviews and easily see all the Member Reviews you've posted, but for some reason not your Published Reviews. Unless I'm mistaken, you aren't able to add a Published Reviews field to Your Library display at all. Why not?

The WikiThing entry on Published Reviews claims that they're Common Knowledge, but apparently aren't treated as such. Odd that it seems to be the only feature you can't track.

Well, they sort of are, in that they're work-data that everyone can contribute to, but they're not part of the regular CK listing, they're a separate thing, like the book descriptions.
Honestly, I don't know why anyone would want that field in their catalog in the first place. It's not pertinent. And even if it were there, it wouldn't tell you if you contributed a listing to a book, it would show all published reviews added to any book.

I'd recommend some sort of Google Sheet/Microsoft online something to keep track of them. LibraryThing isn't really made to keep track of reviews other than ones that are your private ones.

The published reviews and book descriptions are not among the items on the CK page of works, and all those items on the CK page are available for display in your catalog. So, again, while they may be a part of the things we can all contribute to on a work, they are not in the same set of stuff as CK is.

How is a Published Review any less "pertinent" than a Member Review, or anything else LTers submit?

You're right, the field would show all Published Reviews, not just yours, but you would be able to see whether anyone has provided one without clicking on every book individually. Just like Member reviews.

I just don't see why Published Reviews are treated any differently than Member Reviews. Like Member Reviews - and unlike Common Knowledge - you're credited for each review you supply on the main page. Yet there's no way for you or anyone to see what other reviews you've contributed.

Less pertinent to a person's individual catalog, not to the site as a whole, obviously. How is Random Reviewer A's blurb about Book X at all relevant to one's catalog?

And wait, now you're saying you want other people to be able to browse that you've pasted in some published reviews? Why would anyone else care about who contributed someone else's review to a work page, unless there was a problem with it? Member reviews were written by the member, of course those are accessible on a person's profile, that is something entirely different. Contributing to CK is done for the sake of providing info to the site for other people to potentially make use of, not for "getting credit" for things.

Yes, the biggest reason for being able to see what other published reviews someone contributed would be to remove them if someone was inserting things that shouldn't be there.

I can see some utility, if I wanted to take on adding Published Review snippets as a project. I can imagine myself scanning my catalog and then hunting for reviews for my books, and the current system would make it hard to know where you are in such a project. For my own part, that's purely a hypothetical use case, but I'm sure such folks exist.

>12 hipdeep: If one wanted to do such a thing, they could easily create a collection to put books into that they either had or had not yet done, or use tags. It would be very simple to mark for your own use whether you had done some particular thing with a book. (Hence, my collection of books that I need to scan covers for but have been to lazy to get around to fixing as yet.)

>14 Collectorator:

the OP wants to be able to see in his/her catalog all the published reviews on his/her books.

My understanding is that the OP wants to see in his/her catalog all the published reviews that he/she posted. (There's nothing wrong with that, either, but it could easily be done by tags or collections, as >13 .Monkey.: points out.)

All this talk about Published Reviews not being part of CK is simply wrong

Did you pay the least bit of attention to what I wrote? Let's repeat, shall we! Published reviews ARE NOT among the things there when you click "common knowledge" on a book/work page. Published reviews ARE NOT among the things of CK that are available for view in one's catalog - those that are are the items from the aforementioned page. You can call them CK until you are blue in the face, I really do not give a crud, but the fact remains that whatever they are classified as, or not, they are not among the rest of the CK items and it really makes no difference what they are called.

>18 Collectorator:

It's a harmless request.

Agreed. For me, it falls under the category of "I wouldn't use it, but it also wouldn't affect me, so it's no skin off my nose if other people want it".

I wouldn't care if it existed, except for the fact that dev time is precious, and this would be used by practically no one.

The spamfighters group recently found a HUGE number of spam published reviews (over 200 on one work) so maybe some kind of tracking of published reviews could be helpful for spamfighting as well.

>21 norabelle414:

That seems appropriate motivation to devote LT dev time for such a function.

For the record, I would probably use it once available. When I read a solid review, worth reading for itself even if I'm not going to read the book, I like to "put it" somewhere, and I've found LT's Published Reviews to be a good candidate. I don't make a concerted effort to seek these out, but it has occurred regularly and so I would like to remind myself of reviews I've linked.