Setting to count volumes rather than works
ConversazioniRecommend Site Improvements
Iscriviti a LibraryThing per pubblicare un messaggio.
1LibrarianLawrence
Apologies, if this is a repeated suggestion (I did look beforehand, but may have missed it). I would like to suggest adding a setting that would make the counts of books that show near collections and elsewhere be determined by the number of volumes (sum of the volumes field) held, rather than the number of works (as is apparently done now).
This would allow users like myself who wish to know the size in volumes of particular collections to enter multi-volume works as single works, rather than one work per volume or duplicate works for each volume. (And in a minor way improve both works and bibliographic level data, especially over time.)
Thanks for considering.
This would allow users like myself who wish to know the size in volumes of particular collections to enter multi-volume works as single works, rather than one work per volume or duplicate works for each volume. (And in a minor way improve both works and bibliographic level data, especially over time.)
Thanks for considering.
2gilroy
I believe there is already a field for number of volumes in your book record.
And if you look in the Charts and Graphs page, under the Physical measurements section, it does offer total number of volumes in a chart just below the screen break
And if you look in the Charts and Graphs page, under the Physical measurements section, it does offer total number of volumes in a chart just below the screen break
3Crypto-Willobie
That 'number of volumes' doesnt do anything -- it's not counted or totalled.
However if you give a separate entry to each volume in a multi-volume work (as some users do) then you get what you want.
However if you give a separate entry to each volume in a multi-volume work (as some users do) then you get what you want.
4gilroy
>3 Crypto-Willobie: It does have an effect in the Charts and Graphs. That's it.
5Crypto-Willobie
>4 gilroy: Is that new? I hadn't noticed...
6LibrarianLawrence
Clearly, I have been misunderstood. What I was suggesting is a setting that would change collection size calculations, so in places were one's collections (e.g., Your Library) are listed like "Your Library (####)" the number #### would reflect the the summation of the "Number of volumes" field, instead of the number of Works in the collection.
For example, a 7-volume work cataloged as a work is counted as one item (work), even though there are 7 items (volumes) on the shelf. While one can (and I have) catalog each one separately, it can create a duplicate works mess and it also taints the bibliographic data on export — a really ugly workaround, in my view. I find it useful to know — at a glance — how many books/volumes are in a collection and would like to avoid data issues with bibliographic export and duplicate works. I would be very surprised if I was alone here.
The setting I am suggesting, would give users choice of how to approach their libraries while being relatively easy to implement (a conditional to check for the setting and direct flow control to the correct SQL query) depending on LT internals.
For example, a 7-volume work cataloged as a work is counted as one item (work), even though there are 7 items (volumes) on the shelf. While one can (and I have) catalog each one separately, it can create a duplicate works mess and it also taints the bibliographic data on export — a really ugly workaround, in my view. I find it useful to know — at a glance — how many books/volumes are in a collection and would like to avoid data issues with bibliographic export and duplicate works. I would be very surprised if I was alone here.
The setting I am suggesting, would give users choice of how to approach their libraries while being relatively easy to implement (a conditional to check for the setting and direct flow control to the correct SQL query) depending on LT internals.
