LibriVox Forum

The link to the new catalog is at the very bottom of this wordy post

After lots of hard work behind the scenes, I'm glad to finally be able to make an announcement that the new catalog system that we've been using to manage projects is official! All completed and in progress works, as well as their readers, have been entered into the system.

What does this mean for in progress projects? Nothing really. We're already doing everything that we need to use this new system. All BCs should be using the admin interface to add readers to their sections. New soloists are filling out the proper information in their first post so that MCs have everything they need to enter it into the system. We're using the new magic window to manage ongoing projects, as well as the proof listening process (so handy!).

What does this mean for regular volunteers? Not much has changed, except that now you can more easily find the "To Come" projects that you're looking for. Have you ever needed to check to be sure a project hasn't already been claimed before starting it yourself? Have you ever wanted to look for a particular work or author that's being done as a collaborative project to read some yourself? Check out the link at the bottom of this post to the new catalog search, and you should be able to find everything you need.

Some of you may be familiar with the new way in which you can keep track of your own projects with the new system as well. For those of you not clued into this handy feature, check out the aforementioned link at the bottom, and put your forum or catalog name into the "Reader" field. Once your results have loaded, look at the very bottom of the list for your name under the heading "Readers found". That's your very own special page on LibriVox. While you're there, make sure that your catalog name and URL (if you have one) are correct.

What does this mean for audio book listeners? Lots!! This means that you can find exactly what you want without having to search a long list of completed works. No longer will you need to use your browser's search function to find what you need. Also, the new database has more information than the old catalog had, which allows you to search for more items. You can now search by any one or more of these items: title, author, reader, status, solo/group, language, BC, MC, category, and genre. Check out the link at the bottom of this post and start searching! Oh, and I almost forgot. You can still look at a complete list of the catalog by leaving all the search fields empty, and clicking "Search".

Please use this thread to post any problems you find with the new system (bugs), or questions you have about how it works!

Don't forget to change your bookmarks!

• New Searchable Catalog

Amazing

Hooray! I was using it earlier this evening and I didn't even realize it. Good work.

Just a note: When searching "in progress" works, some are not clickable. I noticed one of mine was like that and was able to fix it by adding the Forum url to the catalogue url. (Admins will understand) Just click the "readers" link and edit. So easy to copy and paste the forum url into the catalogue url thingy. Ya I know , I'm not very techincal but its what you get with volunteers.

Starlite wrote:Just a note: When searching "in progress" works, some are not clickable. I noticed one of mine was like that and was able to fix it by adding the Forum url to the catalogue url. (Admins will understand) Just click the "readers" link and edit. So easy to copy and paste the forum url into the catalogue url thingy. Ya I know , I'm not very techincal but its what you get with volunteers.

Yep. Eventually that will be fixed, but for now we'll just have to put the forum URL in both fields.

Congratulations!!!!
Just one quick question. In the result list, I just get a list of titles without authors. Is it planned to re-introduce this information as sorting criteria?

Best regards
Stefan

Very well done indeed. Searching by author and language and even to find out what needs proofing. We really do not deserve any of this (except of course we do because we're all fantastic).

I also like being able to click on my name to check if there's anything I stupidly signed up for whilst drunk.

I've got a burning issue about the genres thing, though, but I'll leave it for now otherwise I'll be like the boy who asked for more and that just wouldn't be right.

Cheers,
Carl.

CarlManchester wrote:I've got a burning issue about the genres thing, though, but I'll leave it for now otherwise I'll be like the boy who asked for more and that just wouldn't be right.

Cheers,
Carl.

I think if you're asking for anything then now might be the best time to do it.
There are some wonderful behind the scenes people who might be able to help depending upon what you're requesting.

Yes Carl - new feature requests/bug reports/questions welcome at any time - just don't expect a fast turnaround. :)

StefanS wrote:Congratulations!!!!
Just one quick question. In the result list, I just get a list of titles without authors. Is it planned to re-introduce this information as sorting criteria?

Best regards
Stefan

Already in discussion as a feature request! Thanks, Stefan. :)

Okay, my burning issue is how/what/who/when/why will determine how classification is carried out in terms of the genres thing. I really think it important to keep these tidy.

To be slightly parochial, looking at the results for "philosophy", there are a number of recordings that have been completed but don't get returned (auhtors like Plato, Descartes, Machiavelli - things you really would expect to see there). On the other hand you do get Aesop's Fables, a novel by Tolstoy and 23 versions of a poem - if these things count as philosophy, then really anything does.

Obviously, someone has made these decisions and I'm not condemning them for it. People can't be expected to just automatically know how to categorise books they haven't necessarily read and may not know much about. But that's what's going to be happening, so I think we need some rules and/or a process.

An example of a good rule, in my opinion, would be something like "fiction may be classified as philosophy only in truly exceptional cases". But I'd also just like to see some kind of order to it, however that's done.

Sorry to whine on.

Cheers,
Carl.

Whe could have a new section for the BCs, who have read the book, could place it in its genre,

Yes, I think this would be a good idea. However, to take the specifics above, you can still have a situation where someone had recorded, say, Crime and Punishment and thinks (correctly) that it can be described as a "philosophical novel". But, IMO, this doesn't make it philosophy, so there needs to be some standard. I'm not suggesting it needs to be too rigid or a conservative academic definintion of philosophy (although we have a bona fide academic philosopher in our ranks who could help), but maybe a short selection of rules which could be agreed on and stuck to.

Maybe I'm being a bit blinkered, but it seems to me that there could otherwise be endless arguments about it.

I don't want to come over as precious about the purity of my own chosen corner of LibriVox, but I'd find it a disappointment if things develop so you search for philosophy and that's not necessarily what you're getting, and I suspect that a similar thing might apply to other categories too (eg I notice that the Communist Manifesto comes up under "psychology").

Too reitterate, though, I do really appreciate the work that's gone in.

Cheers,
Carl.

Good point Carl. When choosing Genres, I pretty much have to guess. I think it would be great to have an "expert" look over things and give us pointers. Perhaps you could list the ones you think qualify as "philosophy" and we can mark them as such.

A pull then