The New Catalog is Official! (Feature Requests & Bugs)

kri · Post by **kri** » January 4th, 2007, 11:58 pm

Just a note about the Genres. When doing all the data entry, we didn't bother putting the genres in. That's why it seems sort of wonky right now. For example, philosophy missing Machiavelli and such. It wasn't a priority, but will probably be something we plod through later.

earthcalling · Post by **earthcalling** » January 5th, 2007, 12:33 am

Maybe we could add 'genre' to the list of standard information required at the start of a new project. At least that way the discussion happens in the open and in advance.

CarlManchester · Post by **CarlManchester** » January 5th, 2007, 5:42 am

Hi again all,

Sorry to seem pedantic over the whole thing. It's easy to be a back seat driver.

Would it be okay though if I kicked off a proposal for a system (as simple as I can make it, I promise) for how genres could be arrived at?

BaruMonkey · Post by **BaruMonkey** » January 5th, 2007, 7:10 am

CarlManchester wrote:Would it be okay though if I kicked off a proposal for a system (as simple as I can make it, I promise) for how genres could be arrived at?

Suggestions are always welcome from the community here. Your idea may not get implemented, but we do want to hear it!

Post by **hugh** » January 5th, 2007, 8:42 am

no polls!

the question is: what is standard library practice? this is what we should conform to (eg Library of Congress standards... and actually Gutenberg.org classifies works, so we should just use what they do. Yes, this should be added to BC requirements).

IMPORTANT NOTE: once the projects are in the system with all readers etc (that was the miserable data-entry part) changing the genre/classification is trivial.

are there volunteers to go thru the existing catalog and write out the classifications as gutenberg lists them? for instance:

the prince, by nicolo machiavelli
LoC classification: Political science: Political theory
see: http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/1232

(NOTE: it's not philosophy according to LoC, and again we should follow them as much as possible).

and for the record, here are the LOC classifications (each has a host of sub classes):
http://www.loc.gov/catdir/cpso/lcco/

* A -- GENERAL WORKS - WP version
* B -- PHILOSOPHY. PSYCHOLOGY. RELIGION - WP version
* C -- AUXILIARY SCIENCES OF HISTORY - WP version
* D -- HISTORY (GENERAL) AND HISTORY OF EUROPE - WP version
* E -- HISTORY: AMERICA - WP version
* F -- HISTORY: AMERICA - WP version
* G -- GEOGRAPHY. ANTHROPOLOGY. RECREATION - WP version
* H -- SOCIAL SCIENCES - WP version
* J -- POLITICAL SCIENCE - WP version
* K -- LAW - WP version
* L -- EDUCATION - WP version
* M -- MUSIC AND BOOKS ON MUSIC - WP version
* N -- FINE ARTS - WP version
* P -- LANGUAGE AND LITERATURE - WP version
* Q -- SCIENCE - WP version
* R -- MEDICINE - WP version
* S -- AGRICULTURE - WP version
* T -- TECHNOLOGY - WP version
* U -- MILITARY SCIENCE - WP version
* V -- NAVAL SCIENCE - WP version
* Z -- BIBLIOGRAPHY. LIBRARY SCIENCE. INFORMATION RESOURCES

CarlManchester · Post by **CarlManchester** » January 5th, 2007, 9:33 am

Hi Hugh,

hugh wrote:IMPORTANT NOTE: once the projects are in the system with all readers etc (that was the miserable data-entry part) changing the genre/classification is trivial.

I don't think its trivial, I think its a potentially very useful tool. I guess it depends on people's preferred way of using the site, but when I first stumbled upon LibriVox a few months ago, I was looking for philosophy audiobooks to download. If that function had been in place then, it would have made things very easy and would have given me a good impression of the site.

But it's usefulness varies in proportion to how well ordered it is.

Using the Library of Congress system (or another existing library system) is a very good suggestion, and would, in theory, get rid of any problem. However, there are two distinct disadvantages:

1) Currently, appropriate categories are not set up, so in order to implement this, someone would have to go back in and re-do the tables, which I suspect would be a lot of work. And there's nothing wrong with using our own categories, I think. Also the LoC system would probably entail a lot of unused categories, and I think I'm right in saying it wouldn't offer the divisions into types of fiction that a lot of users would want to see.

2) Being electronic allows classification of any given recording in more than one place, if desired (so The Prince could be classified as philosophy and as history, as well as political science, if we had such a category). We lose this ability if we opt for a system designed for a paper-based library.

Doing what Gutenberg does might also be good, but would again probably mean re-doing the categories, and would require us having a way of knowing how Gutenberg would classify texts it doesn't hold.

Anyway, I think this is a potential problem in need of a solution, and I don't think the solution need be too onerous or complication (I'm particularly sensitive to the fact that work has been put into setting things up).

Thanks,
Carl.

kayray · Post by **kayray** » January 5th, 2007, 9:45 am

By, "trivial," Hugh meant "easy." We know how very important a proper system of genres is :) We just spent months getting the reader info added, which was very time consuming and labor-intensive. Changing genre tags for each book is laughably simple by comparison.

mcrandall · Post by **mcrandall** » January 5th, 2007, 9:55 am

The system is HAWESOME! Thanks to the creators/implementers for their hard work, which makes everything so much easier for the rest of us.

One idea, can there be a link from a member's profile page to their catalog page? Or is this already there, and I am missing it?

Thank you!
Michelle

kri · Post by **kri** » January 5th, 2007, 11:16 am

mcrandall wrote:The system is HAWESOME! Thanks to the creators/implementers for their hard work, which makes everything so much easier for the rest of us.

One idea, can there be a link from a member's profile page to their catalog page? Or is this already there, and I am missing it?

Thank you!
Michelle

Which profile page and catalog page are you talking about?

Post by **hugh** » January 5th, 2007, 12:31 pm

yes, what kayray said: "trivial" meant: it is very easy to change/add the proper category, which i agree is essential for a proper catalog.

the initial problems were:
a) designing the database & interface system
b) coding interface and design
and
c) data entry! this was a nightmare, as each chapter has readers assigned, which had to be done manually.

by comparison, changing the genre is easy-peasy, it just has not been attacked yet with any rigorousness, so that is what I am inviting people to do next:

plough through our existing catalog and assign the correct categories/genres (using LoC/gutenberg as much as possible); and then we can easily put this info into the system.

\probably the wiki is the place for this project.

CarlManchester · Post by **CarlManchester** » January 5th, 2007, 1:16 pm

Okay, if its a work-in-progress we're talking about, I guess I can wait to see how it turns out and then complain bitterly. Only joking, of course.

If I'm any use at all, I'll also be willing to help in the sorting excercise - generally, not just on philosophy.

But just to bang on about it some more, and because it can't be said too much, I really really hope that fiction and philosophy can be kept in their respective places. (Although there are a very small number of exceptions which go to prove this rule, a couple of which are currently in progress).

mcrandall · Post by **mcrandall** » January 5th, 2007, 3:15 pm

kri wrote:
mcrandall wrote:The system is HAWESOME! Thanks to the creators/implementers for their hard work, which makes everything so much easier for the rest of us.

One idea, can there be a link from a member's profile page to their catalog page? Or is this already there, and I am missing it?

Thank you!
Michelle
Which profile page and catalog page are you talking about?

When I click on my "profile" link at the bottom of my posts, it goes to a page with some stats about me. I was wondering if there can be a link from that profile to my "catalog profile" which shows what chapters I have completed, signed up for, etc.

Does that make sense?

-Michelle

kayray · Post by **kayray** » January 5th, 2007, 3:37 pm

mcrandall wrote: When I click on my "profile" link at the bottom of my posts, it goes to a page with some stats about me. I was wondering if there can be a link from that profile to my "catalog profile" which shows what chapters I have completed, signed up for, etc.

Does that make sense?

-Michelle

Oh, that's a neat idea :) That profile page is hard-coded into the forum software, and I'm not sure we can add another field (Kri? Dan?) but one thing you could do is change the "Website" url in your profile to your catalog page url, or add it to your signature urls.

kri · Post by **kri** » January 5th, 2007, 3:39 pm

mcrandall wrote:
kri wrote:
mcrandall wrote:The system is HAWESOME! Thanks to the creators/implementers for their hard work, which makes everything so much easier for the rest of us.

One idea, can there be a link from a member's profile page to their catalog page? Or is this already there, and I am missing it?

Thank you!
Michelle
Which profile page and catalog page are you talking about?
When I click on my "profile" link at the bottom of my posts, it goes to a page with some stats about me. I was wondering if there can be a link from that profile to my "catalog profile" which shows what chapters I have completed, signed up for, etc.

Does that make sense?

-Michelle

Aha. I'm sure that's possible, and could be added to the list of new features. I think it's something that won't be high on the priority list. However, you can sort of do it now by putting the URL to your catalog profile in your Website URL in the forum profile.

thistlechick · Post by **thistlechick** » January 5th, 2007, 6:02 pm

hugh wrote: and for the record, here are the LOC classifications (each has a host of sub classes):
http://www.loc.gov/catdir/cpso/lcco/

Whoa! ... don't get classification confused with subject headings or genres... classification really isn't relevent to us since it is really only for arranging items on shelves in libraries... we are interested in subject and genre headings.

Annie (LibraryLady) and I are already planning for a massive genre/subject entering festival (as well as a mini-revamp of what we have already)... so, don't worry, it'll happen when it's time =)

Maybe we should just shadow the search by Genre option right now to help eliminate the confusion?