Just Joined; Have a few ULTB's.
Aderi ao LibraryThing para poder publicar.
Este tópico está presentemente marcado como "adormecido"—a última mensagem tem mais de 90 dias. Pode acordar o tópico publicando uma resposta.
I am trying to understand how this all works.
I have several ULTB's, that only I have listed.
Do I count?
I only see one book in your ULTB collection that shouldn't be: Sauce (Coronet Books) has fourteen owners.
There are a few other copies. They just needed to be combined.
Do rememmber to check your "ULBT" tags every few months,
OK at least every year or so.
Just did and a) found many "oncers" I had not tagged and
b) many books which someone else (on LT) had since acquired :-)
This "house keeping" can wait 'till I just finish this page/chapter/book. My TBR pile is (metaphorically) SO high.
Also (this is bragging), I seem to be the unique holder of a complete series: http://www.librarything.com/series/Eastern+Love
Beautiful books, published 1928, rag paper hand tinted engravings, limited edition of 1000.
I have no problem with ephemera being catalogued into LT. Also, anything with an ISBN number on it, or would have it were being published in the current era.
Well, you're allowed to add a book without scanning the cover, but you've gotta scan when you brag about it's artistic merits.
I'm not in favour of using the ULTB tag for sheet music, periodicals, maps and other paper ephemera. Maybe it's time to have a good definition in our group of what is a ULTB (B = Book) and what isn't??
I agree. I will dig out my scanner tonight.
Yes, definition of a book is a puzzle. ISBN is International Standard BOOK number. Does that mean that anything with an ISBN is a book? I have a cup and saucer and a pond pump with ISBNs (although they do also include books).
as well as decks of cards, decoder wheels etc.. There are even bookmarks that have ISBNs.
You could argue then that anything without an ISBN but like something that has an ISBN now could have had an ISBN if it was published more recently and therefore is also a book.
For American items, maybe anything that gets listed (or should be listed) in the Catalog of Copyright Entries, but this also includes manuscripts and art works.
This was also around the same time that 5-digit zip codes became mandatory in the US and 10-digit direct dial phone numbers becane common.
Also from Wikipedia, 9 digit ISBN's came out (as mentioned already) in 1966, the 10-digit standard was "published" in 1970, but some in Britain used the digit form until 1974.
Before this, there were LCCNs, Library of Congress Card Number, many U.S. books have these printed in them after 1945; and these numbers can be used when adding books with LOC as a source in LT . LCCN's date before 1945, but I don't remember seeing them printed in books before then.
Edit: LCCN's date from 1898. The acronym can also be written out as Library Congress Control Number (current proper name). There was a time when libraries would order LOC cards for their own library catalogue, which used to be all cards.
I especially enjoy ultb's of well-known authors. For instance, the Dutch authors Adriaan van Dis, Nescio and F. Bordewijk. I have 11 ultb's of Adriaan van Dis, all of them signed, 21 ultb's of F. bordewijk and 8 of Nescio. Van Dis told me when signing my books that even he doesn't own one of my ultb's. He didn't ask me for it, luckily, because I fear I would have had to say no.
All french books, some of which were presumably widely sold enough that they should eventually become non-unique as the user base increases.
a scifi story, an engineering book and an insect book for kids.
Het Laatste Offensief; Vliegtuigconstructies; Jakkes, Beestjes!
Scanned their covers myself. Tried to be as thorough as reasonable on the entries.
Will probably add some more later on, there's plenty of old books still to catalogue.
My Minneapolis collection, which is maintained separately because it is co-owned with my partner, has 22 of 73 ultbs (not surprisingly).
However, if I included my printed music the percentage gets very large indeed. I do, in fact, have a lot really obscure music, but I doubt that I will ever get an accurate reading here because musical items are entered so haphazardly my many users that it's often impossible to tell what they actually own.
Just a quick glance and I could see that you were not the first person to list The Island Means Minago by Milton Acorn. Your entry is from Sept 26, 2012 and clearly there was a review posted Feb 27, 2011 before you posted your review (also) on Sept 26, 2012. It appears that your copy was not the 'first appearance'. There are 12 other people who have it also, and I didn't bother to check their entry dates once I saw there was a review previous to yours.
While I understand that you don't want to waste time going back to adjust what is no longer unique, that is something that we all have to do periodically if we want to have accurate ULTB lists.
I don't mind going through my collection once in a while to remove the tag from items that now have 2+ members, for some books it can be fun (and wish-list fattening) to get a peek at the library of other people who also have that book.
I think the reason The Island.... book didn't indicate to combine when you entered it, is because you seem to have added a period to Milton Acorn's name. It does not show now, but when I saw it last night, it showed as this: Milton.Acorn, thus that would cause the LT software to think it was a NEW author and not know that it was to be combined with Milton Acorn. Someone else, must have come along and combined the books after you entered yours in September. (I combine books all the time, even books that I don't own, just trying to clean up the loose ends!)
Have fun with LT! I struggle with the work vs. book issue too, but have found this is a great data base to utilitze. It is what you want it to be!
As somebody who has not (yet) entered "[sheet music]" (I don't usually think of my mostly piano music as "scores") in the title of my works that are such, I think the reason is that when I was entering it, I didn't consider it part of the title. Well, I still don't. It's metadata. It's only due to the limitations of LT in not supporting the metadata needs of nontraditional media that one needs to do this. At some point I will go through them and change them, though.
To me it too looks wrong to add the media to the title. But it is necessary on LT to prevent wrongful combinations.
One reason why people use LT but choose to keep their libraries private is because they enjoy the site's functionality in terms of book cataloguing (saves them the trouble of learning about databases and SQL) without feeling any specific need to share their book buying habits with the world at large, or because they have no desire to use Talk or any other non-strictly-cataloguing area of the site. Others may be keen to preserve their privacy -- especially if they use the same username (or a very similar one) on other sites. They might have an unusually large collection of erotica, valuable manuscripts or first editions that they don't want anyone to find out about. They might have several books about mental issues and psychiatry that reveal too much about their own personal history; similar considerations hold for apostates / book thieves / victims of online bullying. Perhaps their tagging habits are too private.
Importantly, not wanting to share your personal library with the world need not entail any specific reason for secrecy, much like not wanting to be filmed in public areas does not mean that you have something to hide -- "it's none of your business" is, to my mind, a perfectly cromulent reason in its own right.
Somewhat responding to myself, I did something today to make me more agreeable to putting "[sheet music]" or "[score]" right after the title, despite it being metadata. I was looking in an online catalog for a book today and came across an entry which turned out to be a review of the book, but the title didn't include "[review]", which would have been helpful. I was surprised that the entry included a link to read the full text, and disappointed that it wasn't the full text of the book.
Cromulent is one of the neologisms that the Simpsons have given us (usually "X is a perfectly cromulent word.").
& I agree with private users making a mess of things: there's no way of contacting them and gently bringing that to their attention.
>47 omargosh:, 48, 49, 52
That is what many users here do to disambiguate e.g. films from the books they are based on or editions of sheet music from actual music: they'll add [movie] or [dvd] to their dvd titles (like this) and [cd] to their music albums (like this). Sadly, many users don't make that effort (causing a mess for combiners). One user who makes a point of avoiding such ambiguity is theabbotsmusick, who uses that account for music only. His entry titles all include distinguishing tags.
Goddard, "first appearance" is a nice category, well worth keeping. It may cost you some labour, though, to ascertain that any given entry really is such, given the many ways different people may enter stuff. If it looks as if yours is the only title in the database, I'd first check the author page for any other uncombined copy of it. Then you might do a site-wide search on the title, in case the author name itself wasn't properly combined, or if there are variant authors (Anonymous vs. Various vs. Editor vs. "No Author" etc.)
Of course, there's no end to possible typos, say, in either the title or author name, which could still obscure that other copy of the book in the database. Still, until any such are found or corrected (we do combine terms with obvious typos, rather than chasing down every last member who makes them and nagging them to edit), if the author and the title have been properly combined, to all purposes such a title would be unique to the database.
By the way, one way of telling whether you were really the first one to enter something is to look at the sequence of member names on the work page. This, however, will only work for works with relatively few copies. For instance:
The order of entering of the title was 1) benwaugh 2) me 3) VolupteFunebre
Again, the application is limited, but not completely useless if you mostly enter relatively rare titles.
The commercial outlay was probably what a second hand copy would cost, but I very strongly doubt that the availability of the book is any better than when I committed the act. It was the only surviving copy available, for sale, or even for inter-library loan.
I admit that some might disagree.
In the case of your copy, I presume you're discussing something that's still in copyright? If it's old enough, it doesn't matter if it was once copyrighted. Also, it's only the owner of the rights who can call you out on it. If the author is dead, only the estate. If the publisher is out of business, they can't sue you. It still might be murky if someone wanted to republish the works; books for which the rights owner cannot be found (as in the hypothetical out-of-business publisher or deceased author) are called "copyright orphans," because nothing can be done with the work until the copyright lapses.
Thanks for reviving the thread, I am off to check my counts.
Though works can of course be withdrawn if right holders wake up after the fact, some authors fear the checking may not be diligent enough.
I do make a couple of small exceptions on count. If I've cataloged a single-copy book in both my and my late husband's catalog, it shows two copies, but since it's one physical book, I count it as an ultb. Same if I've got more than one copy of something no one else has; since I'm the only cataloger, I count it as ultb.
So, end result with the two accounts is a modest 300 ultbs. Still have stuff uncataloged, though.
If you like the idea that someone in LT has a copy of every book ever published, then you wouldn't want to get rid of a ULTB book. I have, however, disposed of 1 or 2. But, I leave them in my LT library as Withdrawn.
Of course, if you're taking your ULTBs to a place where they will be resold, unless your library is open for lending, there's no need to sacrifice shelf space to preserve this copy.
* I have two or three copies of a rare book but they are the only copies anywhere on LT Malcolm the Waterboy
* I have one copy cataloged and the others listed are part of a Legacy Library
* I have one copy cataloged and the others are part of a wish list
* I have one copy cataloged and the others are eBooks.
The last three have come up only a couple times thus far but I expect they will be more common if I do any looking of my rare-on-LT volumes.
Are eBooks more or less ethereal than wishes?
Are most Legacy Libraries memories or real?
So how unique is unique?
There will always be physical books, if only used ones.
Downloading a free public domain eBook takes very little effort. Once available, it is not scarce.
A wishlist is a book someone has heard about but has not succeeded in finding at a price they will pay. This is why I'm not happy that wishlist numbers add to the size of libraries in the top 10,000 libraries list. It is easy to add 5,000 wishlist items (no financial or physical investment) and make it seem as if one has a really large library. I won't get any traction on changing this, regardless my views.
Many legacy libraries are based on published lists, not actual collections that are still held together.
Unique is a term with very literal definitions and some ones that are more impressions. The literal is "one of a kind". It is often misused to become uncommon. This leads to terms like "very unique" which are pointless in the context of "one of a kind".
A term like ULTB is more meaningful when you have (own) a book (a real book) that is uncommon enough that no one on LT has it and has cataloged it.
It is for these reasons that I have adopted the policies I have for when to use the tag. I ask(ed) for commentary to see if this conforms to a consensus of how others use it.
I use ultb-w for my wishlist books that no one has cataloged and that I am the only one looking for. Again books that no one else is interested in or that they just don't know about yet. I have a lot of books on my wish list, 744 but only 26 tagged ultb-w. The oldest was published in 1693 and I know where to find it on microfilm. I have very little hope of ever getting a copy but still... The newest was published in 2009. A History of Blacks in Kentucky: In Pursuit of Equality, 1890-1980, it's semi-academic, published by a historical society and of limited interest but one day I will find a copy at a price I will pay. The ultb-w lets me know that if I stumble on a copy of it and another book on my want list at the same time this one gets priority.
I agree that ultb should only be used for physical books on our shelves but I see value in other designations that someone might want to use.
This seems like a reasonable way to handle these situations.
I get many PDFs from Google Books, Archive.org, etc. I even make many of them myself. I have been building an archive of Edward Stratemeyer's personally written stories, including the 168 books and many dozens of story paper serials, dime novels, and short stories. Obviously it is not complete but I've made considerable progress beyond what is available for free online on the easy sources. I don't catalog these at this time and am not sure if I will. If I have the book, I might add a link to the PDF in the comments field.
The whole nature of ULTB is that the books are perhaps quite scarce or they are at least obscure enough that only one person has cared enough to get one and catalog it. At the end of the day it doesn't mean a whole lot but it is fun to have a way to see which books are less often cataloged on LT.
I also like legacy libraries and have seen lists of the books owned by one of my collected authors and have thought about building a legacy library for him.
My personal choice was to not use the LT wishlist feature once I realized if affected the apparent size of our library. As a personal definition, shared by a few I suspect, a library or collection reflects the books one owns and not titles once read or heard about through some means. Others have different views of this and that's fine. It just makes it hard to make any sort of meaningful comparison.
I have a few ULTB books. They're all physical books, in my possession (and in some cases, they are probably the only copy there is, not just on LT, but in general).
I am sorry, it is a sad thought, but there will not always be physical books or for that matter e-books... I mean there were no books before 3200 BC give or take. When parsing the mean of unique be careful of your usage of "always". If unique is one of a kind then always isn't the next 10 or 100,000 years.
I don't understand what the slight amount of effort download loading a e-book does to it's validity as a ULTB. ULTB means unique within Library Thing not the whole wide world or world wide web. In addition ULTB is not the the same a Scarce Library Thing Book. (hmmm SLTB less the 5% of the of the... NO NO NO not going down that road...)
Wishlist, sure they are much less real than e-books. Putting a ULTB tag on a wishlist book is sort of pointless. I could put "The Dynamics of an Asteroid" by Professor James Moriarty on my wishlist. But really what would be the point. Once there should/could I really tag it ULTB. (Thinking thinking NO NO NO I am not going to do that...)
Finally, If I am not mistaking Thomas Jefferson Library (in my thinking the premier Legacy library) does in fact exist, in actual full physical manifestation. It is the Library of Congress if I am not mistaken.
WAIT A MINUTE!!!
I was trying to find the Legacy Library page when I glanced at the "Vous et nul autre" page. (Go to the Stats/Memes tab and scroll down on the right side to Memes heading.) This page use to be a list of books you and one other person had. It now has a index for 0, 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5. ZERO! ULTB in a FLASH!!! WOW! WHEN DID THIS HAPPEN!!!