profile just visible for LT users?

Hi LTers,

I'm a sucker for viewing LT profiles; I enjoy exploring not just the libraries but the comments and photos of users with which I have common stuff.

However, there's something that bothers me about profiles: the fact that anyone can type your nickname on Google and view it straight on. I would enable some option to keep your profile (not just your library) private; at least, I'd like to keep it from non registered users.

I'd love to upload photos and farther information on my profile, but the visibility of it to anyone on Google stops me from doing it.

Any comments on that? Would it be possible?

Thanks.

Hmm, I'm afraid I don't "get" this. What is a general browsing visitor going to do with your profile that a fine upstanding LT member (yes, I know we're all wonderful) wouldn't? It's so easy to create an account here, the restriction doesn't seem worth it. Just my two cents worth.

Just my two cents worth.

A penny for your thoughts.

//I'm making a fortune on this scam!//

Hmm, I can't really see the point, unless your reviews and comments were inaccessible as well.

But I can imagine why someone might prefer this. Some of my colleagues are pretty conservative, and I don't know if some of my views or reading interests might put my job in jeopardy. I doubt it would, and I think there's very little chance that any of them would go snooping, but others might feel differently.

Also, if a friend or family member recommended a book and I hated it and wrote a scathing review, I wouldn't want them finding out about it. I don't personally know anyone who uses LT, so if my profile, reviews and comments were only available on the site rather than to anyone online, I wouldn't have to worry about them seeing it at all. Again, I doubt anyone could find my stuff online, but others might prefer the extra security.

Of course, if you think there's a risk of the people you're trying to hide from joining LT, then it doesn't solve your problem at all.

While I'm against making individual websites remote islands of the Internet, this makes me think that LT should adopt something like a Bell-LaPadula model, in which there are different levels of reads: The already existing private library is self-read only; a new category could be friend-read only; another new category could by site-read only; and the default category would be global-read.

But, as AndrewB pointed out, it's trivial to create a new LT account. I believe all you'd have to do is type in a unique username and password in the login box, and LT creates the account for you.

Also, inkspot makes a good point, and it leads me to think we need better defined connection groupings, and for users who like privacy, the ability to limit who sees what (doesn't Facebook do this? I wouldn't know).

It's the interent. If you don't want anybody to know about it, don't post it. Anywhere. This is the only secure method. Any other 'privacy' options incourage you to share information that is not secure, with privacy being circumvented with more or less effort on anyone's part.

It is extremely easy to not post identifying information on LT, whilst still retaining a sense of individuality. Choose a cute picture not of your face, list an urban area within a 100mi of your real address, etc etc. That way unless you inform someone of your username on LT they won't know that villy83 is you.

Inkspot is making quite a point here. I've always thought that with a simple glimpse on someone's shelves you can learn a lot of stuff about him. With complete information in his profile, you can draw it better. Pick something from a site and something from another and you have one heck of a picture!

What I mean is that, apart from all of us LTers being wonderful :), registering is a step farther than what a 90% of poking-around-people might want to go. I'm interested in sharing my profile with LT users, not with busybodies.

If my profile is invisible from Google, you can just guess that there's someone nicknamed like me in librarything for the different comments on this group, for example; but you won't know if he's from Arizona or New Zealand.

The categories of privacy would be good. I, of course, know about what internet is and the safest method for not sharing any information about myself, but I might want to share it with a group of people, excluding the ones outside it.

By the way, I'm not wanted dead or alive, likes ;)

Aw, "unwanted dead or alive" ;-)

5: Yes, more control over who sees what could be useful.

6,7: I agree with villy83 here: there are lots of things I want to discuss in this community, but I don't want *everyone* I know to be able to read it, and I think almost anyone I'd have a concern about wouldn't bother registering to read my stuff. For me, it's not that I think it would really get me into trouble, but I'll avoid being prejudiced against or starting an argument where I can.

But you're right about your details reading_fox - lie about the personal details and there's little reason to worry unless you're under surveillance by government spies or something :)

What real issue have we had come up from a random Google view of an LT profile? Was there a case of a stranger just entering random search terms into Google and finding their next stalking victim through random key words and counting themselves lucky because they didn't have to go through the bore of signing up for LT?

I'm just curious - because known people are always going to have a way to track you. I'm just wondering if this is the new "stranger danger."

I don't know if this is related but I got an email from someone saying they had seen one of my LT reviews and that I should check out their website. I ignored it - no mention of who they were on LT and the message not being a profile comment seemed dodgy to me!

>12 stephmo:.

If someone is feeling stalkery enough, they'd sign up for LT. It's not like they have to give any identifying information and it's only one extra step. They could be using a public terminal or proxy, even, to mask their true location.

A well-motivated stalker will find a way to stalk you no matter how private you make your internet activities.

>13 calm:.

That's called an unsolicited advertisement. Some people call it SPAM.

Every time I get one in my inbox, unless I'm feeling TOTALLY benevolent, I just mark it as spam, because I know that the person is e-mailing me for entirely selfish ways, otherwise, they'd try to start some semblance of an acquaintanceship first. You know?

For example, I run a writer's workshop, and I occasionally get e-mails from established writers. And they say things like "I heard you have a writers workshop. Can you sell my book there? Here's a link to my website." SPAM.

I guess I'm incredibly naive, or something. But I just flat don't worry about my face out there. I'm not worried about somebody turning up in the middle of Nebraska (for crying out loud, there is less than 1 person per square mile out here - I think we'd notice!). I'm careful about financial information, and that's all I worry about. My daughter and grandchildren have a different last name than mine, and they live in a very large metropolitan area. I've taught in the same small school for nearly 30 years - if people I care about don't already know my politics and religion, they haven't been paying attention.

>15 MerryMary:.

It might not be a problem where you live and where you work. I don't worry about my face either, but you can grasp a good picture of my thoughts from my shelves; and I might not want to share it with everyone out there. As Inkspot said before(>11 inkspot:.), there's many things you might want to share in this community, but it doesn't mean you want to make it accessible to anyone.

>14 aethercowboy:.

And, of course, if there's someone who wants to know something about you with enough motivation, he's going to find out easily.

16>

But that's your library, not your profile. And given how trivial it is to create an LT account, if I was worried about someone figuring out who I am and getting information that I wouldn't want revealed, I'd have a private library.

(I suspect that people who know me very well could figure out who I am based on my profile + library -- taken as a whole it reveals my academic background, former and current locations, and sexual orientation, which pretty much uniquely identifies me) but I don't have anything either that reveals my identity or location more than a general area on my profile, nor any books in my library that I wouldn't want my boss or my grandmother to know I have, so it's not a concern. I'm happy with anonymity rather than privacy, which is why my library is not private. If you want yours to be, perhaps you should consider that option.)

>17 lorax:.

So you're NOT the eponymous Dr. Seuss character!? I was hoping to interest you in some Thneeds...

I agree, though: don't put stuff up on the internet you wouldn't want some parent/grandparent/clergy/employer to find. I may not be the most anonymous person on the internet, but if there's something I don't want people seeing, I don't put it out in teh intartubez.

This may seem paradoxical, but here goes: as much as I want, and have argued for, granular privacy options for my catalog - to make some parts of it public and some for my eyes/use only - the idea of making parts of profiles or other site data only visible when signed in, as the default or common practice (or even the idea of private catalogs ever being the default), makes me really uncomfortable. One of the things I always liked about LT was its open nature, its non-clubbiness. One of the things that always turned me off of its competitors was that when I got an invitation to join, they wanted me to sign up immediately before I could check it out or even see my RL acquaintances' profile or books. I realize that LT already has to block access to the site to members-only, in high-traffic periods, and that's a shame in my view, though I really do understand the pressures they're & the servers/network/whatever are under - and it seems to be intermittent rather than a complete bar to non-members.

One can choose which usernames to use on different sites, so that they're not necessarily easily linked. I have a username here that I don't mind associating with myself; on other sites I don't necessarily want people linking to me (or to my activity on other sites) I use different monikers. I don't put information on my profile that I don't want others seeing. Similarly, I don't put books in my catalog that I'm not happy sharing with others, or if I do (as currently) have collections I want to keep private, I make my whole library private, since right now we have no other option. LT is not like other social networking sites - Facebook, GoodReads, and similar - and in my view that's a good thing. I think my preferences on some issues may be idiosyncratic, but I also think there's a case to be made that the general openness of LT is one of its major strengths.

18>

While I may be as crochety as my namesake, I lack his facial hair. ;)

I appreciate arguments for granular privacy. I think we could do something there. The main concern is simply that it would be a lot of work, and, I think, wouldn't really get used that much. I'm also concerned that LT always be default private. I think it's been critical to LibraryThing's success.

As for visibility, I don't want to get into hiding pages from Google that are accessible to users. It's a very wiggly sort of privacy, like hiding your keys in a flower pot next to the door. There are very few websites that do it, although I admit Facebook does it to some extent.

>21 timspalding: How did you know my keys were under the flowerpot next to the door? I demand that my flowerpot knowledge be opt-in and that I be able to toggle it as private.

I understand everyone's concerns about this privacy stuff, as well as the fact that it'd be a lot of work (and for a cause supported by me and... and... anyway ;).

Actually, when I first posted I just wanted to introduce this topic (granular privacy) to see how I could manage to hide a piece of information from "outsiders".

Still, Tim, would it be possible to mark some of your books as invisible (or just visible for someone), though? That'd do the trick for me!

Thanks for all the comments. I'm happy I seem to have created some debate here :). Cheers,

The problem with private books is that they have to be private everywhere and the code has to be bulletproof. Privacy that keeps breaking is worst than useless.

villy83, if you do not like people to know what you read, just don't put the books in your library. It is a much cheaper and simpler solution than have Tim do a lot of work for no use.

I think private books are worthwhile.

>25 IaaS:. For no use? That's just your opinion. Your logic here seems to imply that, likewise, private librares are useless, and there are some out there.

It seems that infiniteletters and others (like me) would find it useful. Of course, that's something up to Tim; he'll decide if it's worth his time. (Hope so! ;)

> 25: Well, yes, I guess you could see it that way. Except that those books would be in my actual library and I would list them here on LT because I use that to manage my library.

I mean, okay, in practice I don't have that many books that I would like to be invisible to others (and I haven't listed those yet). But supposing I did? This is LIBRARYthing - I want to manage my own, real, totally personal library here. For some of us this is not about advertising our reading habits, but about managing our shelves. Could we have a little privacy (other than making the entire account private)?

In short: I don't think this is a waste of Tim & Co's time. But ultimately that's for Tim to decide.

I keep a sort of relative anonymity by using a different "intarweb" user name for different activities. I chose to use one of my pseudonyms on LT so that I could benefit from the social aspects of the site. However, since the cataloging aspects of LT are orders of magnitude more important to me than the social aspects...I hardly ever tell anyone in RL who I am on LT.

I would love for Tim et al. to develop a book-by-book privacy feature so that I could recommend LT to my colleagues/clients and hand out my username to help them feel more comfortable. As it is I can say it's a great site but, sorry no, can't tell you who I am there...(I'd like to keep my job, thanks!).

Ah. Obviously, I've found the right forum.

I was searching for the right setting so that I can allow my friends here on LT to see my library. But I now infer that I can't do that, either everybody gets to see it, or nobody (other than myself) does.

Like BarkingMatt, I'm using LT just to catalogue my books. (Worse, I am a professional cataloguer ... and this is what I do on my off-time; so, yes, I'm certifiably bonkers. ;-> ) I am in desperate need of inventory control. But I can't see the purpose of letting the entire world (the entire LT world, that is) poke about. (It's not a matter of hiding what I actually own, I'm not ashamed, and I'm not posting anything identifiable on the profile even if I were. I'm just not interested in using LT for social networking, that's what I use Facebook for.)

However, it would be handy for actual friends among LT members to see each other's libraries, even if for no other reason than to check for duplication before buying each other a particular book for Christmas ...

Tim, is this within-LT open-to-friends closed-to-everyone else granularity really that hard to program in? If so, I am rather puzzled as to why have a "friend" option in the first place ... What am I missing, here? (Please do not read a whiny tone into my question. I'm simply asking.) (And, yes, hinting this would be a desideratum ... )

>30 Tanuki.kun: I think a lot of it comes down to what's best for the site as a whole, rather than what's possible from a technical viewpoint.

You're not interested in using LT for social networking, but you do want your friends to be able to see your catalogue. So as things stand, your library is public and everyone can see it. This is a good thing for the site, even if it's pointless and not interesting for you. Tim has said several times in the past that it's a good thing the default catalogue setting is public rather than private; I don't think he wants to encourage people to hide their catalogues for no particular reason.

>30 Tanuki.kun: If so, I am rather puzzled as to why have a "friend" option in the first place ... What am I missing, here?

Well, people you've friended show up in your Connections feed when they add new books to their libraries; that's nice, because then you can talk to them about the books. It also provides you a quick shortcut to their libraries, instead of having to search for them every time (and remember their username).

>30 Tanuki.kun:

I'm more likely to allow granular hiding—the porn-book feature. Allowing users to hide from other users by default will, I think, degrade the community. Openness creates value for all. I'm biased in favor of that. Insofar as you need expose only what you want personally, I see the current feature set as making a few people unhappy—most will go all-private—in return for lots of value for all.

#1 etc - I may be a bit slow here, but how can anyone look up your profile unless you tell them your user name?

Well, there will be links on work pages, and author pages, etc.

>33 timspalding: Do you think granular privacy will happen anytime soon? I still don't fully understand the problems with a basic collection-based approach: hide this collection from others, and exclude from/hide All Books. Sure, it wouldn't have all the subtleties that some people might want (books that appear in a collection when they look at it, but not when other people look at it), but it seems like a pretty straightforward start.

>36 _Zoe_:.

It's a matter of how the permissions will stack, I'd think. If you have a collection that's public and a collection that's private, I would think that you, the owner, would see the intersection books in any collection that contained it, but for any other user, they would not see any books in a private collection, no matter if it's in 20 public collections.

Though, is there a need to differentiate hidden collections (that is, don't show this COLLECTION, but show the books if they're in other collections) and private collections (that is, don't show these BOOKS)?

I think we can do granular privacy in the next few months. We're going to be working on "cataloging" stuff, and that's related.

The collection problem is part conceptual and part not. Conceptually, you need to think about what happens when a collection is private, but a book is also in another collection. From a programming perspective, LT doesn't do full collections math every time a book is thought about. We'd have to jump through collections hoops every time we showed a review, on an author page, etc. It does think about the privacy of the user and could think about the privacy of the book, which are just facts, not inferences from the collections layer.

>37 aethercowboy:

If there was book-by-book privacy, there could be an easy way to power-edit it in for a collection.

Re: book-by-book privacy settings: I can understand the weighing of pros and cons here - how much programming would it cost to make it watertight, and what would it do to the ratio of public vs. private books? I have no idea.

A possible workaround for private users who would like to go partially-public is to have a private account for all books, and a public one for some books. I might do this, either temporalily while awaiting book-by-book privacy, or permanently if Tim decides against book-by-book privacy. A feature that allowed users to copy all their library data into a second account would make this a lot less labour intensive. There is now a feature that can move data this way, and in my admittedly very ignorant estimation, this is very close to a feature that can copy data. So I'm basically waiting to hear about that, because it would be a nuisance to do a lot of manual copy-and-pasting when it wasn't necessary.

If you have a collection that's public and a collection that's private, I would think that you, the owner, would see the intersection books in any collection that contained it, but for any other user, they would not see any books in a private collection, no matter if it's in 20 public collections.

Conceptually, you need to think about what happens when a collection is private, but a book is also in another collection.

This is what I meant about a Collections-based approach being simpler but less nuanced. If you want the book to be private, just don't put it in a public collection. Private collections could be treated the same way as private libraries.

We'd have to jump through collections hoops every time we showed a review, on an author page, etc.

Despite what would then be misleading terminology, if private collections just didn't count towards All Books, you could then just look at All Books to determine whether to show a review on the work page, etc.

I'm just not convinced that there's enough demand to justify a fancy, perfectly nuanced privacy system rather than a basic way to hide a group of books.

I'd be happy with any granular solution that works. Book-level, collection-level, whatever.

40: this is a good work around temporarily, but the main disadvantage is that I want to be able to see and manage all my books together: pull them up by tags or other common data (e.g. author), etc.

>42 rsterling: I guess my question is, how many months of developer work is it worth to be able to manage them together?

42: I know, it's not only a lot of work (without a copy mechanism) to set up; once you have it, it takes a lot of back-and-forthing every time you change something. (I'd start by making an extra collection in the private account to indicate which books were in the public account.)

By the way, when I wrote that I hadn't seen anything after msg. 32, and I suppose we're really talking about privacy settings now, which is of course much better.

So, here's a question: If you could only have one, per-book privacy or per-collection privacy, which would you want? The both do the same thing—hide books. But one is book-by-book and one is collection-by-collection.

What, incidentally, if there was a pseudo-collection. That is, there was a collection called "Private Books."

per-book

I don't think I'd use either of them. Per-book is probably better, but more complicated to design since the whole collections UI is already in place.

Privacy options wouldn't make into into my top 10 priorities for LT, though... probably not even the top 20, for that matter.

If it was done on a per collections basis, and someone wanted a single book to be hidden, couldn't they just put that book into a collection and hide that?

Per-book would be a checkbox. Believe me, it's MUCH easier in every way.

>48 StormRaven:

Yes, you can do anything either way. The question is, which is more intuitive or powerful or wanted...

As long as you give us a Power Edit for this checkbox, I'll gladly take per-book. Though, I doubt I'll ever use this feature, unless I run for public office or become a clergyman...

Now all we need are CK Power Edits. ::puppy dog eyes::

Sure, if per-book is easier then do that. I think people would be happiest if they could personally see their private books together with the rest. (Though this makes me wonder: why are recommendations based on collections? The "Childhood Books" that I had to separate out are actually still in my library.)

Are you suggesting that there be a "use for recommendations" flag on the per-book level too?

Also, it just hit me: pseudo-collections would be hella nice. I assume a pseudo-collection is something that resembles a collection (that is, shows you a set of books), but is derived instead of contrived.

>45 timspalding: If I ever got to the point where I really felt I needed to hide books from public view in a library, I'd prefer the shortest distance - a single click. I wouldn't want to have to dump them in a collection and then have to make the collection private and then have to worry about whether or not I'd accidentally dumped it in non-private collections.

I'd much rather have the deliberate action of making the book private driving privacy rather than having it in a collection making it private.

Are you suggesting that there be a "use for recommendations" flag on the per-book level too?

It would be nice, but again, nowhere near the top of my priority list.

Also, it just hit me: pseudo-collections would be hella nice. I assume a pseudo-collection is something that resembles a collection (that is, shows you a set of books), but is derived instead of contrived.

Would these show up as collections, or somewhere else? It reminds me of the idea of Smart Collections that's been suggested before, for things like Recently Read (finished date/removed from CR in past X days).

Per book. But it could be in the form of a "Private" collection.

I think that having a switch per collection to make it public or private is a bad idea. Even if the system gets it, it isn't very intuitive for people. If a book A is both in the Fluffy Bunnies collection (private), and in the English Lit collection (public), and a book B is both in the World Domination collection (private) and the Useful Skills collection (public), well, it takes a lot of remembering and figuring out which books are hidden.

I'd like some clear indicator on both the book page and the catalogue page whether a book was private. Maybe a padlock icon or something.

Per book, please. It does seem more intuitive.

Yes, definitely per book. The the books could remain in their appropriate other collections without fear that being in a public collection would also make the book public.

If it were set up that you could view these books together in a default "Private" collection that would be fine, otherwise I could just tag them all "private" and view them together via the tags page - either way is fine with me.

This would actually change, quite a bit, how I utilize my LT catalogue and recommend people to LT.

I agree with >51 aethercowboy: - having this be a "Power Editable" setting would be lovely.

Agreed, per book seems more practical. No having to remember whether a book is in more than one collection, one of which is private.

Per book, I think.

Yup, per book seems better - ETA: especially if it's power-editable.
(But as I said above: whatever ends up getting the job done would be fine with me.)

Definitely per book.

I would want to hide books that might exist in many collections, e.g., "youth and childhood", "storage", "my library", "read", etc.

Not that I'd ever use it, but I definitely agree with per book.

Way back when, I wondered if there were any books I'd hide if there was the option... ...... Nope. *shrugs* maybe I'm too open for my own good?

I have to ask - what are you guys reading that you're so ashamed of? And where can I get a copy?

>64 Booksloth: that you're so ashamed of?

I'm not ashamed of anything - I have a public library now - you can see what I have. Anybody, family or friends, that comes to my house can see the books I have sitting on my shelves.

However, I might like to be able to recommend LT to colleagues and clients - people I have a professional, not personal, relationship with. These are not necessarily people that I would invite to my home to browse my shelves. I don't need my boss calling me into his office saying that some kid's parents called up concerned because I have 65 books tagged sex, 3 books of gay porn, and a field guide to psychedelic mushrooms listed on my LT account and therefore I am being drug tested and sent for mandatory counseling.

Per-book, definitely! (as I said many posts ago...). Easier for Tim & Co., and does just what we want. A checkbox would be perfect!

>64 Booksloth:. I'd be ashamed if I had "Sex and the city", which I don't ;). Per-book privacy, however, can be so useful if you read political essays, for instance. You might want to share the thrillers you read, but not your political ideas and feelings.

Per-book with a derived "Private Books" pseudo-collection.

64 This question or a variation on it has been asked and answered many times before in several other threads. It's not (necessarily) about people being ashamed of their books, but really the reasons don't matter. If people are, so what. Personally, I want to be able to keep wishlists and reading lists and maybe shopping lists (for myself and other people) that are for my own use and that I don't care to make public. I'd prefer to make the main part of my library, the books I own, public. I might also catalog but then hide some old childhood books I still have, so that I can have a full record of what I own, but also keep them out of what I consider my main "library" now - the books I own and read now on which I'd like my public LT connections (connections in the broadest sense) to be based.

The last point you can do know by putting those children books in a new collection that you mark as not being used for collections and removing them from the My Library collection.

Yeah, I know I can separate them that way, but I don't mean marking as "don't use for connections" in that specific sense. I mean I don't want them to be visible or public within my library (making connections in the broader sense: where people look at other people's libraries, see they share certain books, etc.) because I consider these substantially different from my library, yet I still want to be able to have an accurate record of them. I started to do that by putting them in a separate account, but that's kind of unsatisfactory for organizational purposes.

another vote for by-book-with-checkbox.

70> But if you take them out of your My Library collection then they aren't in your library. They'll still be visible in the All Collections pseudo-collection but that's not the same thing.

72 - Thanks. Yeah, I understand. I think we're talking at cross purposes. I'm just trying to explain one example of something I'd probably make private. I do understand how collections work: I've got a few set up for various purposes (some active, some inactive, some overlapping with my library, some not). Separating books in a collection and even making that collection inactive, though, does not accomplish the same thing as making them private.

They'll still be visible in the All Collections pseudo-collection but that's not the same thing.

Now if only we could get rid of that pesky All Collections....

>74 _Zoe_:: Yeah. While I don't mind enough to pester Tim about it - not intended as a sneer -, it's still beyond me why that "collection" is used for random books from my library (on my home page) for instance. Or, in fact, why it's even visible to other users.

edited to correct html

You have a bunch of data in this database, it all has to be somewhere as being yours. Nothing random about it. Think of it as "All Data" from which other collections spring; smiling, naked, and on the half-shell.

Nothing random about it

Not in that sense - I don't go about randomly adding books to my catalogue ;-) But I was referring to the feature that's specifically called "Random books from BarkingMatt's library" on my home page. Considering that name, I would expect it to chose books from the "my library" collection, not all those in "all collections" (which include books I deliberately excluded from the "my library" collection).

p.s.: But like I already indicated, it's not that big of a deal for me.

//whines, rolls on back, presents soft underbelly//
//remembers phase of moon*//
//gets up and feels silly//

Sorry Matt, completely missed the "(on my home page)" bit. I don't go to my "Home Page" any more because it messes up my "Talk Page", erm, well, randomly.

*eta: for future iArchaeologists: Half, Waxing.

I didn't bite you on any of our previous occasions, did I? ;-)

No, but you savaged the heck out of those zombie vampire roomba daleks. Made me all a'quiver!

>76 justjim: Yeah, but it doesn't have to be displayed. The database can store data without presenting that data publicly.

> 78: * whmpers & offers paw *

Guess I'm just as bad, I actually meant "profile page" not "home page"

Let's say that you had a few hundred books that needed to be marked private. Selecting and marking a checkbox on each would be tedious, unless it could be applied to all at once. Let's say that those few hundred books are already labeled "I want these books to be private." With the wizard you could select them all, and add them to a collection (Private Collection, for instance). That's easy. How is a per-book checkbox easy in this case?
Pretty sure the idea of placing it in a Collection would be the most convenient, and could be applied to individual books virtually as easily.

Any further progress on this feature?

Is there a decision about what approach will be taken re private books?
Individual book marker, a special Private Collection, or a characteristic added to each collection as to whether it is private?
My vote is for a special private collection, such as appears to be in the 'beta' mode now.
Any timeline for this feature, or any indication where this lies in the priorities?

There is a beta (very beta) checkbox-per-book feature available (you may need to be in the BETA group to see it, but I think it's gone public). It's extremely buggy and I wouldn't use it at the moment - it sometimes hides the private-marked books from the owner as well, or messes up deleting them.

83> If Power Edit had a Mark Private ability, it would be at least as easy as putting it in a collection.

The problem with per-collection privacy is that as collections currently stand, books have the characteristics of the _least_ restrictive collection they're in. So if you have a collection Don't Use for Recommendations, and a book is in there and in Read (say), it will still be used for recommendations because Read doesn't have the Don't Use checkbox marked. So either the Private collection would need special coding to be different from every other collection, or the way collections work would suddenly switch...and neither one sounds like a good idea to me.

It's a "beta" feature but not a "BETA" feature.

It's also (at least as far as we can tell) somewhat an abandoned and half-working feature.

I've been using the Make a Private Book feature for items in our church library catalog, that I need to replace. I haven't made many books private, but I don't want to lose track of them, either. Is there a way as the catalog administrator, for me to filter for books I have made private.