Publisher series

After much debate and etc., I've added a new feature to work-level Common Knowledge, "Publisher series."

The field is somewhat problematic. Publisher series—like the Britannica Great Books—can be said to apply to the work level only indirectly. The level they really apply to—editions or clusters of editions—doesn't exist on LibraryThing and, in light of the problems of nailing down ambiguous editions, probably never will.

That said, publisher series continue to clutter up the main "series" feature. And there is certainly some usefulness in a work-level publisher-series feature. For example, it'd be interested to know what works are in the "Great Books" series, irrespective of their exact editions.

Example of Publisher Series: The Oxford Mark Twain

Page: http://www.librarything.com/publisherseries/Oxford+Mark+Twain
A work in it: http://www.librarything.com/work/116938

Illustration of the principle:





What's missing?

1. A cogent explanation—on the page and/or on HelpThing—of the distinction between the two series types.
2. A place to put a paragraph about the publisher series, as is possible for series.

What else?

Since this apparently only took five minutes, please add Alternative Titles and Original Title as well. They were #60 and #54 in the ranked list of improvements.

Whoa!

I glad for this, cause I get tired of cleaning up publisher series all the time.

Should we be moving even the exclusive publisher series over to it? (Like For Dummies...)

I realize the distinctions will need some hashing out, but if that's the general intent the discussion could start on that.

And does Star Wars, for instance, count as a publisher series or an author series?

They're harder because this was a straight duplicate thing (ie., whenever the word "series" occurred, duplicate the line and make it publisher series, ditto references to the internal ID number 23 and 40). But I'll see what I can do.

Thanks!

I think publisher series should be reserved for things where work splits series/not series. Every Dummies book is a Dummies book. Every Star Wars book is a Star Wars book. Every Huck Finn is not a Harvard Classics book.

Actually, I more-than-think this.

>5 _Zoe_:

I'm still killing the kitten. You've just learned how to put sugar on your criticisms ;)

>7 timspalding: Oh well, I'll happily sacrifice more kittens for site improvements ;)

Can we sacrifice the whole concept of "pony" while we're at it?

I'm going to revisit the "book discussions or lists?" conversation to catch up on what (I think) is the discussion that led to this, but without that info, my first instinct when looking for the pub series on the work page was to look under/around where the "series" info is found on a work of fiction (beneath the author's name). Is this different because it's user-generated as opposed to data drawn from an outside source?

Ever the good sport, here's an example: Pantheon Fairy Tale and Folklore Library.

This series was always a problem because although most of the volumes are unique to Pantheon, a few are reprints. Now presented for the first time in all it's complete glory.

And we'll see what happens when people discover the data missing from it's regular location.

>9 kgriffith: I think this should have a less prominent place on the work page because it doesn't apply to all copies of the work.

11. That makes perfect sense, but as with novels that aren't part of a series, if the copy of the work isn't part of the pub series, wouldn't the field simply not be there?

>8 _Zoe_:

If we left it up to you, we'd have Carian sacrifices around here.

Department of Obscure References a classicist might catch.

Original title and alternate titles are now live.

http://www.librarything.com/topic/102079

So, Hard Case Crime then? We can finally move it *all* over to Publisher Series and add in the reprints?

Huzzah!

How would people feel about allowing Publisher Series as one of the columns available in your catalog? I'm just going through adding the Millenium/Gollancz SF Masterworks titles (which is what I wanted this feature for all those years ago) and I figured this would make it much easier. Tim, however, thinks some people would explode if this was available as a column.

By all means, add it. I would never use it, but it's completely harmless.

And could you add an Average Rating column while you're at it?

Shouldn't Publisher Series be next to Series so its really obvious that they're two different things?

I think it's going to be really confusing to allow one type of publishers series (...For Dummies) in the Series field but relegate a different kind to the Publisher Series field.

Sure, felius. That would be an option thing, don't have to show it if you don't want to, so no harm in having it for those who want it.

Just to be clear, since Publisher Series don't apply to all editions, they aren't going to show up in our statistics page, like the regular Series field does, are they?

I think people are going to object to it—wrong information appearing in their catalog, after all. I'll bet we get people wrecking the data occasionally to make it match or not match to their edition.

Just to be clear, since Publisher Series don't apply to all editions, they aren't going to show up in our statistics page, like the regular Series field does, are they?

Do you want 'em?

>20 timspalding: It's not wrong if you're careful with the wording: "Some edition of this book occurs in this series" rather than "Your edition of this book occurs in this series". Although I don't know that any of the columns have longer explanations.

Right. I think there would need to be explanatory wording, and even then we'd get some breakthrough symptoms. People get mad when things they perceive as "theirs" aren't totally in their control. I mean, we had a member storm off the site because the tag mirror for their books used the word Palestine.

>22 timspalding: Sure, but would you say Tag Mirror was a net negative?

I understand the desire for things that are ours to be in our control (remember All Collections?). But publisher series aren't ours, they're communal. The question is whether people should be allowed to display communal data alongside their personal data. I'd say yes.

22> I mean, we had a member storm off the site because the tag mirror for their books used the word Palestine.

You probably lose more members because they don't like the color scheme or the site layout. In the end, the site defines the community and the community defines the site.

>24 brightcopy:

The day I find out that the community here has defined LT to be another facebook, I think I will storm off the site.

>25 ari.joki:

So THAT'S why you won't reply to my Facebook friend request!

*giggles*

I wouldn't want Publisher Series in my statistics, because most often it is going to be "wrong" data, ie not pertaining to the edition I have.

What would make this really really neat (not just a pony but a mammoth) would be a bulk transfer tool. From the series pages, click transfer (and yes I'm sure) and all items move from series to publisher series. Oh well. Until then it's lots of clicking.

From a simple work flow perspective, it's annoying on low-resolution monitors to copy the data from Series, and scroll down all the way to the bottom to Publisher Series to change over some books. I really think the two should be closer to each other. You wouldn't put the title options far apart, so why should the series ones be completely opposite each other?

#7: Come on, what type of cookbook are you using that has recipes calling for just one kitten?

#29

I have to agree with you - the 2 fields need to sit next to one another.

See message thread
http://www.librarything.com/topic/73046#2289083

Tim, you've solved this problem. Since Landmark Books doesn't contain the word series, someone needs to move it.

11>

Agreed. The whole reason we wanted these out of Series is that they don't apply to all copies, and cluttered up the pages.

20>

>>Just to be clear, since Publisher Series don't apply to all editions, they >>aren't going to show up in our statistics page, like the regular Series >>field does, are they?

>Do you want 'em?

Most definitely not.

The CK field "Blurbers" had for a long time given me an uncomfortable feeling. Now that we have the "Publisher Series" field, I finally came to realize what the nagging was about. Sometimes editions published in different regions of the world and/or in different languages can have different blurberers. Thus, Blurbers is almost as much an edition-level field as Publisher Series.

> 16: I wouldn't mind - but perhaps mostly because I would never use it myself.

I would however LOVE to have the new CK Original Title as a column in my library.

wow Alternate Titles, Original Title AND Publisher Series all in one go. GREAT! Thanks Tim

34> Some CK fields are really at the edition level. This is dealt with by allowing multiple entries. So Moby Dick probably exists in lots of different Great Works publisher series. Tim, the new field *does* allow multiple entries, right?

37> Been there, done that. A series of multiple series entries serialises seriously well.

Aaah, I knew it was too good to be true ;-(

I have just 'created' this - http://www.librarything.com/publisherseries/Penguin%20Illustrated%20Classics

Instead of a nice uniform line of the rather nice original covers (in the style of the two Robinson Crusoe volumes), there is a rag-bag of the commonest cover, the same as in the other series.

An opportunity missed!

That was clear from the original message: there is no way to implement this at the edition level, it just indicates that some edition of the work is included in that publisher series.

I really think the two should be closer to each other. You wouldn't put the title options far apart, so why should the series ones be completely opposite each other?

I had them together, but then I broke out in a cold swear over people mixing them up.

Instead of a nice uniform line of the rather nice original covers (in the style of the two Robinson Crusoe volumes), there is a rag-bag of the commonest cover, the same as in the other series.

So, one thought I had was that the cover could be changed on the Publisher Series page. Basically, instead of attaching Publisher Series to the edition level—or quasi-editions, which is all we have—you'd just tweak the covers on the CK page, when necessary.

What do you think?

>41 timspalding: ...you'd just tweak the covers on the CK page, when necessary

Now, that's a pony!!

I understand how people could mix them up, but coming from somewhat of a n00b perspective, I would scroll down, see series, say "a ha!" and not bother to look any further down to see if there was anything else to contribute. I think putting them together, and having an explanation of the fields, will do a lot to help. When you see two together, you will know that they're different fields. When they're apart you might miss one.

I have a possible workaround for people who are going through and editing a lot of books to move Series stuff into Publisher Series. This should work in Firefox, Safari, Internet Explorer, Chrome, whatever. No special addons needed.

First, rearrange your work page so that the "Common Knowledge" section is the top one.

Now copy the following block:

javascript:(function(){fe=function(p,e){return document.evaluate(p,e,null,XPathResult.ANY_UNORDERED_NODE_TYPE,null).singleNodeValue}; pr=fe('//td[@fieldname="publisherseries"]',document.body); prrow=pr.parentNode.parentNode.parentNode.parentNode.parentNode; r=fe('//td[@fieldname="series"]',document.body); rrow=r.parentNode.parentNode.parentNode.parentNode.parentNode; prrow.parentNode.removeChild(prrow); rrow.parentNode.insertBefore(prrow,rrow); fe('.//a[class="fwikiEditPencil"]',prrow).onclick(); fe('.//a[class="fwikiEditPencil"]',rrow).onclick()})()

Create a new bookmark and paste this in as the URL.

Now, go to a work page and click this bookmark. It will move the Publisher Series field up to the top above Series. It will also click on the pencil on both of them. That way you can make whatever edits you need and click Save on the appropriate ones. Should save you some clicking and scrolling.

(If you have any questions or problems with this workaround, please send me a profile comment. I don't want to clog up the thread with this.)

To me, this is a better workaround than moving Publisher Series up next to Series permanently. I think that is problematic and confusing in the way Tim said.

I think it's problematic and confusing the way it is. If you see them together you think, "I wonder what the difference is", and you have a teachable moment. If you don't even see publisher series because it's at the bottom everyone's going to keep putting publisher series into the series field.

It's like you're trying to avoid confusion by pretending nothing has changed.

45> If you don't even see publisher series because it's at the bottom everyone's going to keep putting publisher series into the series field.

I think people who enter the data without ever having scrolled to the bottom of a CK section to look at the fields are probably going to screw things up and have to have cleanup done anyway. After all, if they really wanted to be taught, they would have already clicked on the CK help page (link is directly above the Series box) and saw that they weren't supposed to enter publisher series. But that's never stopped them.

Plus, there's the fact that a lot of them were probably entered in the catalog, and there's no telling what field is next to what in their view. And no, they didn't appear to bother reading any info there, either.

So no, nothing has changed. ;)

Are we going to get a "series description" field for Publisher Series?

> 46

If they really wanted to be taught, they would have already clicked on the CK help page (link is directly above the Series box) and saw that they weren't supposed to enter publisher series.

Well, no. What it says is: Click the pencil to edit. Use the plus-sign to add multiple entries. Do not put quotes around entries.For more help see the Common Knowledge help page.

If I were a newbie, I'd take that to mean how to enter info, not what to enter.

And, of course, if I thought I knew already what I was doing, I wouldn't feel the need "for more help". I might look on the CK page if I had a specific question, but, considering how long that page is, I'd probably do a search on it for what I wanted, rather than read the whole thing.

I do think these two fields should be near, if not adjacent to, each other, to make it crystal clear that two different things are meant.

48> If I were a newbie, I wouldn't read it that way. So I guess we've determined that some would, some wouldn't. My own experience with users is that they often just tend not to read AT ALL.

And I think the term "Publisher Series" is really a bit "inside baseball" anyway. Before I used LT, the term wasn't in my vocabulary. So as such, without actually doing some reading on what Series are and what Publisher's Series are and how they are different, I wouldn't have really made the distinction. I can see the argument that putting them together would make some users seek out this information, but I think you might offset that by the additional ones that didn't. And since regular series (as opposed to Publisher Series) are the most often entered field, they would have never scrolled down to Publisher Series and entered a regular Series into it. But if you move Publisher Series up, they'll be more likely to erroneously enter the regular Series into it. So you'll have to go clean that up.

I'm not saying you're wrong to want it moved, just saying I don't personally see a real decrease in the number of mistakes made by doing so. I just think you'll get more of a different category of mistakes.

Some of the people will still make mistakes, but some will also look at both fields and decide to do a little more research before filling them in (and others will decide to not do anything in the face of uncertainty).

So I think that, while not eliminating mistakes (which is impossible anyway), you've reduced them by putting the two fields next to each other.

50> And, to summarize what I said above, I feel while you might reduce some categories of mistakes, you are likely to increase others. Perhaps beyond the original number of mistakes to begin with.

So I guess since it's all hypothetical opinions, we'll have to agree to disagree.

51> And what I said was that yes you might in some cases convert one class of mistakes into another, in other cases you will eliminate the mistake entirely. I don't think there are any cases where it will convert correct entries into mistakes.

ETA: That is, I find it unlikely that someone who would have entered a regular series into the series field would enter it into the publisher field if it came directly after the series field.

52> I understand what you said, I simply disagree on my personal prediction of the future.

>41 timspalding: I had them together, but then I broke out in a cold swear over people mixing them up.


I suppose cold swearing is better than hot swearing, but on the whole I agree with lemontwist (#43). At least if a person sees that there are two choices, they may think twice about where they put things (especially when there is a description), but if they only see one "series" field, it's a slam dunk. That's why we have so many publisher series being put in the existing series field.

54> I concur.

54> That's why we have so many publisher series being put in the existing series field.

Since we can't tell if a value was added from a work page versus added from a Your books view, I think that's pretty much supposition.

56> I think that users that are going to go to the trouble of adding the Series field to their catalog view are going to be fairly advanced users who are likely to know the difference between series and publisher series.

Lot of mindreading going on in this thread...

ETA: Ever notice when you edit Series data in the catalog view it shows "The information that you are about to edit is part of Common Knowledge, a set of data that is shared by all LibraryThing users. Please read the Common Knowlege help before continuing." in a popup? Ever notice it doesn't show that when you're just on the work page and you edit a series?

>Good point, brightcopy.

We don't know yet if we are going to be having a column in the catalog view for this, which unfortunately makes it more likely that people who don't click through to the work/CK page will continue to put publisher series in the wrong field. My statement was based on the assumption that they were on the work page, as was, I think, most other speakers here.

Then we need some hard data. I propose that Tim keep the field at the end of CK for a week and we measure how many publishers series are added to the series field. After a week, Tim moves the field to just after the series field and we measure again.

Then since there are a lot of confounding factors no conclusion will be able to be drawn, Tim will just leave the publishers series field were it is, after the series field.

60> I agree, with a slight modification. I propose he leave it like it is and then there's a slightly longer period before he moves them to be next to each other.

And that period is... two weeks.

58: Yes, I have noticed that, and I totally think it should say that *somewhere* when you edit CK on the work page. It just *might* make a difference.

Ok, weird, I thought I posted to this thread.

20 - I don't particularly *want* publishers' series in the statistics. However, people who currently (mis)use the series field to track their ownership of publishers' series might not be enticed to stop if publisher's series doesn't show up there. If, as _Zoe_ suggests, the wording is precise, I don't see the problem. I don't have to look at it, after all.

I'm already seeing people putting publisher in the field. *sigh*

Not publisher series, publisher. Penguin is not a series, it's a publisher. Penguin Classics is a series.

>65 KingRat: Penguin is not a series, it's a publisher. Penguin Classics is a series.

I think you could take a slightly different view if you go back to the early days of Penguin Books. Look at a catalogue from 1961. The published works are listed in various series, which include 'Penguin Books' numbered (then) from Ariel, No. 1 to The Apple Cart, No. 1169. They are clearly seen as much as series as Pelicans, Puffins, Penguin Classics, etc. are. I suppose that when they stopped the in-house numbering and moved to ISBNs the feel of a series was lost.

I entered Penguin Illustrated Classics - a small selection of books, widely published elsewhere so not a 'Series' in LT terms, but clearly produced in a common format so a 'Publisher's series'. Series like the Buildings of England or Penguin Modern Painters were commissioned by Penguin and had not been published elsewhere, so meet the criteria for the original LT Series.

If anyone was sufficiently moved to enter all Allen Lane's numbered Penguin Books as a Publisher's series, I wouldn't see that as being less worthy of the definition than Penguin Classics, or, for that matter, Puffins, Pelicans or Ptarmigans, which are not publishers

Very excited about the addition of Publisher's Series. Think they should be together, and that there be an option to display in catalog. If you can't see them, what is the purpose ?

Following on from 65 - Can we please have a way to browse recently created publisher's series, the way we can for regular series?* (For that matter, can we please have a way to browse all CK fields?)

If www.librarything.com/publisherseries could show recently created series, that would be helpful for making sure this isn't filled with junk (or publisher's names).

68> Good idea.

65> Did you change those? I went to
http://www.librarything.com/publisherseries/Penguin
but didn't get any results. It would have been interesting to see if they fit abbottthomas theory about the numbered Penguin books.

69 Here's some that had Penguin Books in teh publisher's series:
http://www.librarything.com/work/11851
http://www.librarything.com/work/37672
http://www.librarything.com/work/40636

70> Thanks. Of those three, only the third appears to have been in the list according to this reference I found:
http://family.gillings.com/penguins/number.html

So I wonder if they're going a bit overboard. All three were put in by a user who seems to be using the Publisher Series correctly (at least sometimes):
http://www.librarything.com/commonknowledge/changelog.php?user=42991&uid=4cd...

Should have put in the book # for these three to make it more obvious what they were trying to say (did for some others). It seems like two of the three may have simply been published by Penguin, which wouldn't really be a "publisher series."

>70 rsterling: I grew up with all books published by Penguin ordered in various numbered series: Penguin Books, Penguin Poets, Penguin Classics, Pelican Books, Peregrine Books, etc. As a consequence I am still inclined to see all books that have Penguin Books on the half-title as part of the series Penguin Books. But I think you"re right that Penguin Books as a series ceased to exist when they were no longer numbered.

>70 rsterling: I grew up with all books published by Penguin ordered in various numbered series: Penguin Books, Penguin Poets, Penguin Classics, Pelican Books, Peregrine Books, etc. As a consequence I am still inclined to see all books that have Penguin Books on the half-title as part of the series Penguin Books. But I think you're right that Penguin Books as a series ceased to exist when they were no longer numbered.

72> Good call. But I think you'd be pretty right about restoring the publisher series to Colossus of Maroussi, as long as you put the number (784) in parentheses to make it obvious.

>74 brightcopy: I did, and thanks for the link to the numbers.

75> Now if you REALLY want to have some fun, go add the info for all the others on that list. :D

I'm rather busy with R.L. Stevenson at the moment; but after that, who knows?

I think the ability to set covers for publisher series is absolutely critical. Otherwise we're going to continue to have situations like the one that emerged on this thread, where users split off specific editions from works to create a publisher series so they can have uniform covers.

Okay, I think I'm getting confused as to what constitutes a publisher series vs what constitutes a series.

Tim stated that the Dummies books count as a series.
I would also take this to mean the 10 Minute Guides are a series.

What about the Time-Life: Living Wisdom books. Do they count as a series or a publisher's series?

Or maybe looking at the series TSR? World of Darkness? (Gaming books will be fun to sort out.)

79>

If the publisher has a monopoly, as in the Dummies or Time-Life books, they have always been a series and remain so. All copies of the book are members of the series, which is the definition of a Series.

If the publisher does not have a monopoly, as in various "Great Books" series, it is a publisher series -- it is a set of editions, and not all books are members of the series.

There will be borderline cases. A clear example of a publisher series is "Wordsworth Classics", which are modern reprints of works that have appeared many times from many publisher.

What we end up with is a box that's explained every bit as much as every other CK field, that's linked from and links to the works in question, and that gets Publisher Series out of Series.

What you don't get is to break the works system so you can see a specific set of covers pulled out on a page together. As I said in #78, I think being able to set covers on the Publisher Series page is an important improvement, which would hopefully satisfy all parties. (So you could see your Junior Deluxe Editions covers on that Publisher Series page while the works remain correctly combined.)

80> So a good example would be the Library of Essential Writers as put out by the Barnes and Noble Publishing branch?

-84 Yes

TSR is a publisher, not a series or publisher series. They published Amazing Stories for a while, but there's no reason not to put that in series with everything else.

Most roleplaying settings are going to be series. I get a little quibbly about the huge sprawling basically-uncontrolled settings like Traveller, but given that part of the issue is that there's a dozen publishers, they wouldn't be publisher series.

Definitely agree that changing covers on the Publisher Series page is a good idea but we'd also need to be able to add covers as well. I've just added the No Exit 18 years series and as I don't have all the books (yet!) I noticed that some of the work pages do not include the covers from this series.

I've been keeping the Voyager Series as a wiki, and it feels SO GOOD to have the list somewhere more accessible.

If you're looking to read good sci-fi, it's a great starting place.

Publisher series still is not on the list as an option to display in the catalog. Until it does there is no point in using it.

88> This is one of those examples where abbottthomas's suggestion about having Series Description for Publisher Series would help a lot. I find myself asking "Who published this Voyager Series? How did they decide what to put in it?" Not that it really matters, since a work is a work and it doesn't really matter which edition you read. It just piques my curiosity.

> 89: The option is being discussed, isn't it? - see number 16 (http://www.librarything.com/topic/102076#2295388)

Publisher series still is not on the list as an option to display in the catalog. Until it does there is no point in using it.

Yep.

89: What? I would never use it as a column. It really needs to be here, though, in the Common Knowledge section.

>93 r.orrison:
It can be in both places.

> 93: Neither would I. But if people do want that option why not provide it.

>89 FicusFan:,92
I'm not opposed but there are two big issues. First, it will be a messy column. Many, perhaps most, of the entries won't apply to your books. And some classic works could have a dozen or more entries. Second, there will have to be strong warning message to prevent edit wars (My book isn't in that series! - Delete).

>93 r.orrison:
I think that page could get a bit messy too. I'd probably only find it useful if I could hide, or at least collapse, series that don't interest me.

Of course it can be in both places. I'm not opposed to it being a column, I was questioning the statement in #89 "Until it (is a column) there is no point in using it."

Another vote for the column, even though I'd never use it. If I'm going to have a series-related explosion, it'll probably be for all the useless regular Series people create for some of my books ("There needs to be a series for two books because they feature the same aliens, even though a) the author says they are each standalone books and b) there are a half dozen other books by the author set in the same universe and with the same aliens as in those two and c) none of the characters from the first book appear in the second book except as causal mentions? Really??")

My feeling is that having this data appear in your library is going to make it seem like it applies to your book specifically and not just the work. Other CK data that appears in columns in your library such as Original Publication Date or Awards does apply to your book in addition to the work. If the column name could be something like "Publisher Series to Which This or Other Editions Belong" but otherwise it's misleading and people are going to get upset because they think the publisher series is supposed to apply to their book.

99> I think perhaps Publisher Series would have worked better as a field in the book record which could then aggregated into the work. But then you'd have to be able to combine the various ways people might spell the same series and it would be much more work. But I'd argue that it would be much more correct as well.

I think it should be in the statistics and the catalog. Otherwise, the people who entered publishers series as "Series" are going to notice that they can't see that info anymore in those two places, and are likely to try to put it back. If there's a place within their catalog or statistics where they can see the new data, they might be less likely to try to repopulate Series with publisher series.

We always have a choice about what columns to see; I doubt that many people would make it a column.

I guess as long as it's a completely optional, opt-in column, it won't be that bad. But if it was a default column, or if people saw it in their library without knowing exactly what it's supposed to be, I can see people going "wait, my book isn't a part of that series!" and then wanting to delete the series.

102> I don't believe any of the CK columns are default - they all have to be intentionally added. Which strikes me as a very good idea, for the reasons you state. But it would be good if there were a zeitgeist, stats, or other page for them.

If it's in Statistics, then I want a way to checkbox whether my book is or is not that publisher's edition.

Now there's a pony.

Okay, now I'm totally confused. Why split off one sort of series from another? A series is a series. Some series are numbered , some are not. Some series are by one author, some by diverse authors. Still, if there is a series statement in the book, then it's a series.

I can see a problem creeping in when there is no named series when the sequence of books obviously implies a one, especially (but not exclusively) if there's a story arc. For example, Margery Allingham's books featuring detective Albert Campion. At that point, people might, to tie the books together, begin to manufacture a title -- without controlling the vocabulary (Albert Campion; Albert Campion mysteries; Campion mysteries; etc.) -- in a series field rather than rely on tags. (I confess to being guilty of this and intend to rectify this once I get all my books in.) I can see trying to bring that situation into some sort of order, but a separate field for publisher series seems more than a trifle unnecessary.

(Oops, deleted the other post while editing.)

Publishers often go in and reprint old books and slap a publisher series on them. For example, go see A Christmas Carol:
Publisher series

Dover Thrift Editions
Bantam Classics
Scholastic Classics
Apple Classics
Puffin Classics
Wordsworth Children's Classics
Tor Classics

It belongs to AT LEAST seven different publisher series. These are not the same level as series in which the books are actually related. There's no reason to pollute the series field (which is frequently a field people have turned on in these catalogs) with all of that. Hence the need (or desire) for a separate field.

I think I understood your question but if not please let me know.

Assuming you are replying to my post, brightcopy, perhaps I should have explained that I am a librarian, a professional cataloguer, and am well aware of the ins and outs of series, what constitutes series, whether series are traced or not, etc.

If the edition of Christmas Carol I own is a Dover Thrift Edition, then that's the series it belongs to. Where is the problem if I enter that in the series box? It's part of what helps differentiate one edition from another and is therefore helpful, not "pollution". That a book might also, in different editions, belong to other series is irrelevant -- the ISBN would be different, the publisher would be different, the publication date would (probably) be different ... it's not the same book as a Christmas Carol published in the Scholastic classics series.

Actually, reading over your post, brightcopy, I suspect we're working with different definitions of the word "series". To me, a series is where the publisher obviously intends a set of books to be related, e.g. by intent (a "classics" series, perhaps), or by author (the "Oxford Mark Twain" in Mr Spalding's original example), or by author / story ("Percy Jackson and the Olympians"). Usually, this is made clear if there is a list of other titles in the series printed, e.g. as part of the front matter or at the back of the book.

If the phrase on the book is generic (the modern, unnumbered "Penguin book"; Tor book), it is in all probability *not* a series.

But, still, series is series.

108/109> Maybe the misunderstanding is this - do you know that what you put in the Series box affects everyone's A Christmas Carol and not just your own? So all those people who don't have the same one will still see your "Dover Thrift Edition" out beside their book listed under Series?

#108

If the edition of Christmas Carol I own is a Dover Thrift Edition, then that's the series it belongs to. Where is the problem if I enter that in the series box? It's part of what helps differentiate one edition from another and is therefore helpful, not "pollution".

The problem is that if you enter that in the series box, you enter it for everyone else's editions as well. My copy is a Folio Society edition, and I don't want it labelled as belonging to a Dover series, which would simply be untrue.

It all hinges on the difference in the way LibraryThing treats works and editions: a normal series is one which applies to every edition of the work; a series which only applies to some editions is a publishers series. I think it's a very useful distinction.

>108 Tanuki.kun: it's not the same book as a Christmas Carol published in the Scholastic classics series.

But it might be the same work, which is how LT coordinates data about discrete book-objects which are nevertheless "the same book" in the vernacular of readership. Since an LT Series is a series of works, then the fact that one edition of a given work is part of a series of editions is a more peripheral datum--pertinent to your catalog perhaps, curious in mine maybe, but irrelevant to many.

Currently, there's really no such thing as "edition level" data in LT. There are "works" and there are individual "books" (the particular entries in discrete catalogs). But "editions" fall somewhere in between these, and "publisher series" is one of the few places where edition data are formally collected for social use.

108>

The problem is that LT doesn't understand editions. So if you put "Dover Thrift Edition" in the series box, it gets attached to every copy of the work on LT.

I was not aware that LT does not recognize editions, although that goes far to explain some very annoying irregularities I had been noting. I would have thought this was a far more important problem to fix than fiddling with the series fields.

So, let me get this straight. My account is set to "private" -- no one else sees it. Yet at least some fields I fill in alter the fields in other people's catalogues? (Could someone point out to me where there is a list of these fields, please?) And is this the reason why, when I have one copy of _Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone_ and one copy of _Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone_, LT kept trying to tell me I was duplicating, even though title *and* publisher *and* ISBN *and* text are different? Major major major problem if that's really the way LT is set up, since people often purposefully collect different editions of the same work, for whatever reasons.

Does this also mean that parts of my work can be undone because some other LT members do not understand the concept of editions, or disagree with how I catalogue a book?

And, yes, Eveleen (reply #111), if that is actually the way LT is set up, I can then see the usefulness of separating out the publisher series, although recognition of editions would have solved the problem before it even started.

Thank you all for your replies and your patience. Since I do not normally follow discussions, not having any interest in treating LT as a literary version of Facebook, I am obviously not as aware of some of the ins and outs of this service as you all are. I've been using LT as an catalogue so I can finally get some handle on my library, but I now am faced with the possibility that my work and my purpose could be seriously undermined. I'm sure you can all understand how upsetting the prospect of having to find another service would be, especially given I've already added over 2,000 books.

Yet at least some fields I fill in alter the fields in other people's catalogues? (Could someone point out to me where there is a list of these fields, please?)

All the fields that are called "Common Knowledge" (and shortened to CK in catalogue column headings) are common to everyone's copies of the work. The link to the page explaining this http://www.librarything.com/wiki/index.php/Common_Knowledge is directly under the header saying "Common Knowledge" on every work page.

114> See http://www.librarything.com/concepts for LT's conception of "works" vs. "books" - that may clear up some confusion.

114>

I would have thought this was a far more important problem to fix than fiddling with the series fields.

It's also a MUCH larger undertaking. It's a major structural change that will probably eventually happen but will take a LOT of dedicated time. Adding the Publisher Series field took Tim all of less than an hour.

Major major major problem if that's really the way LT is set up, since people often purposefully collect different editions of the same work, for whatever reasons.

It's not a major major major problem, it's just how LT works. It doesn't force you to eliminate duplicate works, just lets you know. This is helpful, as for most users in most cases, the duplicate works mean they either entered a book twice (I've done it) or bought multiple copies of the book by accident (oy vey, I've done it).

Here's a good writeup of Works vs Books:
http://www.librarything.com/concepts

As EveleenM pointed out, anything entered into the "Common Knowledge" is shared by everyone (hence the name). Any edits you do there are public and saved in the CK change log, which can be accessed here:
http://www.librarything.com/commonknowledge/

You can search there by username, if you wish.

Another place where your own private information could potentially be public is the editions page of a work. Each edition title and author is listed here, including what is in your own catalog. Just so you know.

114>

It's not a problem, it's just something they need to be aware of. LT doesn't change your title, or ISBN, or publisher data, or anything else, for different editions of the same work; it just considers them to be the same "work". If someone comes into a library and asks for a copy of A Christmas Carol, most of the time they don't care which edition it is, they just want to read the book; that's why books are combined into works. Collectors, librarians, and data-loving people want to keep all the specific details about their copy or copies of a work available; that's why LT has those detailed fields available. So you can see what editions of a work you have, and who else shares that title with you; what you can't do is, for instance, see who else has the Dover Thrift Edition of A Christmas Carol, which is what we mean when we say LT isn't edition-aware. It retains the data, it just doesn't aggregate it or track it across users.

Does this also mean that parts of my work can be undone because some other LT members do not understand the concept of editions, or disagree with how I catalogue a book?

Only if they are the "Common Knowledge" fields, of which Series is one, which are specifically and prominently labeled as being for information that pertains to all copies of a work, not just a particular copy or edition. (Things like "Original Publication Date", first words, original language, etc.) Your own data about your own copy is sacred.

120> which are specifically and prominently labeled as being for information that pertains to all copies of a work

I know lorax knows this, but to clarify for Tanuki.kun I'll add on "except Publisher's Series". It's sort of a mutant field that collects information about all the different copies of the works and doesn't apply to specific ones. I think it's the exception to the rule. This is one of the reasons Tim only recently added it. It's just not a great fit.

I should also note that while LT has only two layers (works and books), I believe its competitors have only one.

Reading over y'all's messages, I think I have it right, now: "Common knowledge" has a specialized meaning on LT that means, loosely, "whatever you do here affects everyone's records". As long as I do not use these fields, all is fine -- no one can override my records and amalgamate my various editions into one "work".

I appreciate that LT at least allows separate works and books layers, as brightcopy termed it -- that is why I signed on, after extensive poking through the "help" and "about" sections of the various possibilities. (This was a few years ago; I don't think "Common knowledge" existed at that time, at least I cannot remember seeing it until fairly recently. I thought it simply a second page for adding bibliographic information.) It was the professional aspect that decided me -- what I wanted, and desperately need, is a handle on my library. Preferably in a form I know and understand, i.e. an actual catalogue. When you have in excess of 5,000 books, the old (handwritten!) index card system just doesn't cut it anymore. The social aspects ... well, perhaps someday. Although the *last* thing I need is to start befriending yet another group of book-pushers ... (insert "laughter" emoticon here)

I hope you can all understand why I was so taken aback at the implication that the social factor was overriding the cataloguing factor, which would have rendered LT useless to me. After all the work I had put into adding even only part of my holdings (some 2,200 books so far), this was not a pleasant thought. Frankly, I was briefly in panic mode, there.

I do want to thank especially brightcopy, jbd1, EveleenM, and lorax for your patient and helpful replies. I shall not reply to your individual points, since that would rather needlessly extend the discussion -- although, to be sure, I did appreciate the conversation.

>122 Tanuki.kun: the implication that the social factor was overriding the cataloguing factor, which would have rendered LT useless to me.

Tanuki.kun, I doubt that that will ever happen. Yes, the social side of LT is thriving, but there are way too many people here who care deeply about accurate data in their catalogs for the social side to win out. :-)

As a workaround, perhaps it would be useful to you to put that series info in your comment field, which is sortable and searchable, and can be viewed in your catalog.

I think it should be emphasized that the fields in the edit book page that you get to by clicking the pencil icon in your library are the fields that actually apply to your books and no one else's. Although a review that you type into the review field is shown on the work page and various other places, but it can't be modified by anyone else.

ETA: It typed that in before Tanuki-kun posted msg #122 and showed that he or she does understand after all.

>123 staffordcastle:: staffordcastle, I have already been using the comment field for pagination and edition information in addition to series information, which makes sorting irrelevant. Series information is also one of my tags, though; i.e. tag field: "Series : 101 Things to Do with Gerbils and Duct Tape"; comment field: "101 Things to Do with Gerbils and Duct Tape, v. 31".

I was glad to see a series field had become available "Common knowledge" page, but was unaware that anything I filled in there would start appearing on other people's records as well ... I'll have to go back through and delete what I did.

>124 jjwilson61:: Thank you, jjwilson61, another useful piece of information. I obviously will have to spend time going through all the manuals again. Either a lot has changed, or I did not memorize various important elements therein. (insert "sigh" emoticon here) I don't think I shall be contributing reviews, though -- at least you will be spared that! (insert "grin" emoticon)

no one can override my records and amalgamate my various editions into one "work".

Actually, that amalgamation does take place. That is what the "work" is all about - any edition in any language* is (or should be) part of it. BUT it won't effect your catalogue other than mentioning the fact that you have several editions (and that only in some places).

* with the exception of dead languages

This conversation, from #105 onwards is a paragon of LT talk. Congratulations to all involved.

>127 Nicole_VanK:: As long as this "amalgamation" happens out of sight, I do not care. It's the integrity of my own catalogue that concerned me, and the prospect of having to start from scratch somewhere else (if there *is* a somewhere else) with thousands of records yet to come.

>128 justjim:: Thank you, justjim, for including my whimpering little hissy-fit in with the paragon set. I feel privileged to find myself in such pleasant, helpful, and articulate company, and promise I shall hissy-fit no more. Although I do not promise never to whine, but I shall try earnestly to have no whine before its time.

>129 Tanuki.kun: No, no, not at all.

Yours was the most polite, best mannered "whimpering little hissy-fit" I've seen in a long time.

You were also lucky to bump into some of the most knowledgeable and experienced Thingamabrarians in the whole LT universe.

Nicely done, all concerned.

#129

Basically all the stuff you enter when you add a book (either manually, from a library source, or from Amazon) on the edit page cannot be changed by anyone.

If you have entered 10 different editions of Day Of The Triffids (for example) they will appear as 10 rows when you view "your books". If you go to the main page (or edit page) of one of your editions it will give links to all your other editions (identified by title and publication field).

A Publisher Series column has been added to catalog view, thanks to conceptDawg. See here: http://www.librarything.com/topic/102982#2325377

Is it possible to mass-change a series into a publisher series? This one, for example: http://www.librarything.com/series/Geneva+Commentaries

133> No.

> 133 / 134 : Alas.

I just want to add another "aye" vote to being able to control which covers are displayed on the Publisher Series page.

I've been working on the Mills & Boon Historical series, and some of the very earliest ISBNs in the series have been reused for another Harlequin Mills & Boon imprint. So not only do I have various different covers of the correct books (UK, US and German covers, if not others) I also have over twenty covers of completely different books marauding through my Publisher Series covers.

*shakes fist at people who re-use ISBNs*

As an aside, is there any way to get a work page for a book (e.g. The Laird's French Bride) not to pick up the cover from Amazon of the book that stole and re-used its ISBN (e.g. Rawhide Ranger)?

#136
As an aside, is there any way to get a work page for a book (e.g. The Laird's French Bride) not to pick up the cover from Amazon of the book that stole and re-used its ISBN (e.g. Rawhide Ranger)?

You can't stop it showing the Amazon cover as a possibility, but since there are only four copies of the book, if you add 3 extra copies and use the correct member-uploaded cover on them, then recalculate the cover, that should switch which cover shows on the series page, and to people who don't have the book.

Although I have had an account for several years, I have actively used LT for a few months, entering just over 6,500 of our 8,000 books. A good number of our books fall into either traditional series or publisher series (also known as "publisher libraries" in some circles).

A traditional series often involves stories that connect to one another. Several publishers may be involved (e.g. Nancy Drew could be published by Grosset & Dunlap, Wanderer, Minstrel, Aladdin, and others in nations other than the U.S.). However, I think there is general agreement that at least within a normal definition, Nancy Drew is a traditional series. In this particular example, the books all appear under the house pen name of "Carolyn Keene."

It is an important issue but for the moment I will set aside the issue of original and revised text versions of the first 34 volumes with the same title and LT's inability to properly distinguish between them even if a cataloger knows what they are doing when entering them.

There are many examples of publisher series. Most often these are titles which may be issued by many different publishers. Hence, if I have a copy of War of the Worlds, it could be from the Looking Glass Library (Random House) or probably a dozen or more other ones with reprints of classics.

Because a publisher library depends on the publisher (which is not separately recorded for a book-level record) it positively does not belong with the entire work record and therefore should not be Common Knowledge.

Even when you know the publisher, not every copy of Anne of Green Gables issued by Grosset & Dunlap is not part of the Thrushwood publisher series.

I read through the entire thread today and don't see that this issue is discussed much. There seems to be more interest in where the input is on the CK form.

James Keeline

138> No, you're right, it doesn't really belong on the whole work like a regular Series and other CK info does. It was added as a compromise, as addressed in the second paragraph of the first post.

138> Basically, publisher series were given a field in the hope that they would then get _out_ of the true Series field. Having Anne of Green Gables say "Publisher series: Thrushwood" when my copy isn't is somewhat less frustrating than having it say "Series: Thrushwood" (right there at the top of the work page). The placement arguments are mostly about convenience-in-entering (in the hopes that it would make it more likely that people will enter publisher series in that field) vs out-of-sightness (to reduce the annoyance of seeing it at all). So, in general, everyone agrees with you...it's just that Publisher Series is, as brightcopy said, a compromise.