New decenium
ConversazioniRecommend Site Improvements
Iscriviti a LibraryThing per pubblicare un messaggio.
1Nicole_VanK
It's minor. I get it. But can we please close the 2010s and add the the 2020s in memes/stats. That sort of inconsistency "drives me nuts".
2Nicole_VanK
I only have one 2020 book (on my wishlist, to be published later this year). I have entered books since the 1st though.
ETA: Oops, my bad - entry date does work
ETA: Oops, my bad - entry date does work
3Cynfelyn
If they were to do anything there, I'd vote for altering the dates of the decades to 1991-2000, 2001-2010 etc.
I'm sorry, but to me the pre-nineteenth century divisions (1800-1849, 1850-1899, 1900-...) look illiterate.
I'm sorry, but to me the pre-nineteenth century divisions (1800-1849, 1850-1899, 1900-...) look illiterate.
4MarthaJeanne
And even if we stick with 2010- It's going to be a while before we have a significant number of books published in 2020. Yes something needs to be done, but 'two weeks' is soon enough to start separating out the new decade or decennium.
5AndreasJ
We should continue taking decades as 2010-2019 etc. because that's the common usage and because, unlike centuries and millennia, we don't give decades ordinal numbers, so there's no "no year zero" argument to be made.
6lorax
Yep. Extending the 'no year zero, so we should define decades as 2011-2020' is ridiculous overcorrection. We talk about the twenties, not the two-hundred-and-tenth decade.
7ScarletBea
There are 2 different things here:
1. Talking about "the twenties" or "the nineties" as a general group (for example, for easy 'cultural' reference): in this case you're referring to 2020-2029 or 1920-1929, and 1990-1999.
2. Talking about decades, centuries, etc: we are now in the last year of the second decade of the (second) third millenium (first decade 2001-2010, second 2011-2020, and so on)
(edited to correct millennium)
1. Talking about "the twenties" or "the nineties" as a general group (for example, for easy 'cultural' reference): in this case you're referring to 2020-2029 or 1920-1929, and 1990-1999.
2. Talking about decades, centuries, etc: we are now in the last year of the second decade of the (second) third millenium (first decade 2001-2010, second 2011-2020, and so on)
(edited to correct millennium)
8Nicole_VanK
Personally I don't particularly care which system is used. Both are messy. But 11 year decades rub me the wrong way. That's just me though :)
9Nicole_VanK
>4 MarthaJeanne: I agree it's not urgent yet. (But as I remember, the same situation took a long time in 2010).
10MarthaJeanne
My recollection as well.
I also seem to find that it isn't until about April that I start seeing the new year's books as normal when entering them. I certainly haven't entered any yet this year. But then, I use the library a lot and most of the books I have bought this year were remainders. Not much space there for 2020 books to emerge yet.
I also seem to find that it isn't until about April that I start seeing the new year's books as normal when entering them. I certainly haven't entered any yet this year. But then, I use the library a lot and most of the books I have bought this year were remainders. Not much space there for 2020 books to emerge yet.
11Cynfelyn
>7 ScarletBea:
"2. Talking about decades, centuries, etc: we are now in the last year of the second decade of the second millenium (first decade 2001-2010, second 2011-2020, and so on)"
I agree with the point you are making, but let's make that the third millenium, shall we?
"2. Talking about decades, centuries, etc: we are now in the last year of the second decade of the second millenium (first decade 2001-2010, second 2011-2020, and so on)"
I agree with the point you are making, but let's make that the third millenium, shall we?
12krazy4katz
The problem is that there was no year "zero", but after year nine, ten is a zero year logically speaking. No one pays attention to that because, as >8 Nicole_VanK: said, 11 year decades are messy.
13ScarletBea
>11 Cynfelyn: oh oops, if course, the third - thanks!
14kristilabrie
>1 Nicole_VanK: Okay, so from Home > Stats/Memes, I see one graph "Dates" that needs fixing. (Updating "2010-" to "2010-2019", and adding "2020-".)
Am I missing anything else, here?
Am I missing anything else, here?
15Nicole_VanK
That's it. (At first I thought it also needed to be fixed for "Entry Date", but that works fine. My mistake).
16kristilabrie
Okay, thanks! I'll see what I can do as soon as I can.
17Nicole_VanK
>16 kristilabrie: Thank you
18Nicole_VanK
I think I may have discovered a side effect: "Google Books Ngram Viewer" flatlines to zero on (I think) all tag pages. That could just be Google being Google though
20kristilabrie
I need the devs help on this to update it. I mentioned it to them last month, but will ping again as a reminder. Thanks for your patience.
21Nicole_VanK
Bump. It's not the hugest of deals, but the inconsistency is awful.
22kristilabrie
I reminded them just last week, it's on our list. Thanks!
23Nicole_VanK
>22 kristilabrie: Thank you
24Nicole_VanK
Bump. (Just so it doesn't get forgotten. I fully understand folks have other things on their mind at this moment.)
25Nicole_VanK
Bump. (just so it doesn't get forgotten).
26Nicole_VanK
Bump
27kristilabrie
>26 Nicole_VanK: Seen, thanks!
28conceptDawg
>18 Nicole_VanK: The google NGram thing is because google stopped creating data for ngram in 2008ish. We actually talked about this yesterday and I mentioned that it's still useful due to historical data. So it stays for now. We'll continue to reevaluate though.
29Nicole_VanK
>28 conceptDawg:: Ah, that's too bad. Thanks for explaining though.
ETA: I'm all for retaining historical data.
ETA: I'm all for retaining historical data.
30Nicole_VanK
Bump. Pretty please with a cherry on top. It's August 2020 now.
31gilroy
>30 Nicole_VanK: Um, where are you NOT seeing it in your stats? Mine is showing just fine.
So that top graph hasn't shifted yet, but everything below is good...
So that top graph hasn't shifted yet, but everything below is good...
32Cynfelyn
Gru : "The physical appearance of the please makes no difference. It is still no." (Despicable me (2010)).
34lorax
Anyone taking bets that we'll get this before the end of 2020? With wishlists and ARCs and all I'm sure there are already quite a few 2021 titles listed on LT....
35Nicole_VanK
>34 lorax: Yes, I already listed a few pre-ordered ones and such
36Nicole_VanK
Bump. It's almost 2021. Please!
38krazy4katz
Yes, very good point. I didn't realize.
39SandraArdnas
Pretty please
40kristilabrie
I've reminded the developers about this, thanks for your patience!
42lorax
This is the sort of thing that (a) is easily fixed - finding where in the code the change has to be made would take longer than making it - and (b) makes a site look abandoned. There is ZERO excuse for this not being fixed by now.
43conceptDawg
Done
44conceptDawg
We're going to make bigger, more sweeping changes to the stats/memes page when we get to them for LT2 (better charts, organization, etc), so this is only the addition of the decade to the current chart. Nothing more.
45aspirit
>43 conceptDawg: thank you!
47krazy4katz
>46 timspalding: That means at 12:01 pm tomorrow? :-)
48Cynfelyn
>43 conceptDawg: Thank you.