Forum

A member has asked that the "x books" listed for each member on the Bookshelves lists is renamed "x sources" as she feels it is misleading since x is the tiotal of books, magazines and blogs/websites. Since this is the first time this has been requested in 12 years I assume it doesn't bother other members very much (it hasn't bothered me either). But if you have any thoughts on this please do add a comment. We wouldn't ever list each source individually on the Bookshelves list, only replace the word books with another word - the numbers for each source are listed on every member's Profile page, which is accessible to any other member by clicking the username. We could easily change it to "x sources" on the Bookshelves list though personally I think that looks odd.

I guess I'm thinking that I can look under "my profile" to see the actual number of books vs blogs vs magazines on my bookshelf (as you do explain).  Is the idea that I want to see that breakdown for other members? For me, it doesn't matter.  I will admit to looking at specific members to see what books they have (particularly if I notice we are commenting on many of the same titles or I see lots of Canadian titles in their comments) or I check on a particular book that I have to see who else has it.  I'm not sure how long your to-do list is.... I realize it is just a single word change AND I want to be respectful of the needs/wants of all members but for me - this is just not a priority.

I feel like I'm being really dim, but I can't see any information on my bookshelf that could be construed as misleading - it clearly states how many books, magazines, blogs etc.. I have.  On that basis whatever it is has clearly never bothered me!!  I agree with averythingcooks - not a priority.

FJT - it's the number for each member under the Bookshelves tab on any book that the member would like changed. It shows a total number x against each member name, sorted highest to lowest. The number is books, magazines and websites added together. So it is misleading that it says x books when it is more than books. But I'm not sure the alternatives are better.

The member's other suggestion was to just show the number for books, ignoring magazines and websites. That is more palatable to me than using "sources".

Why??? Who cares how many books/magazines/websites/blogs somebody ELSE has??? And why would they care..?? Seems like  a pretty useless data set change to me.. unless the number of "books" is some sort of challenge, for which theres a race afoot... for some glorious cup/punch/coupe...

Gotta say ......"race afoot" made me laugh :)

Originally Posted by: debkellie

Why??? Who cares how many books/magazines/websites/blogs somebody ELSE has??? And why would they care..?? Seems like  a pretty useless data set change to me.. unless the number of "books" is some sort of challenge, for which theres a race afoot... for some glorious cup/punch/coupe...

It find it mildly interesting data, in the sense of 'wow they have a lot of books', or 'oh look they have the same number of books of me' but it's not something I look at much or on purpose. If I'm casting a vote I'd say first preference leave it as books, second preference just list the number, third preference sources. But it doesn't bother me much.

Now, onto to the notion of a purported challenge/race. I have wondered if some members view it as such, only because, whenever I member index a book, the number of bookshelves that book is on, goes up! Has anyone else noticed this? 

ameliark - I don't think it's a challenge/race thing when people add newly indexed books to their Bookshelf. I think it's more that some members have not got around to adding all their books to their Bookshelf, especially unindexed ones. But when they see a book they own appear at the top of the Library list, as newly indexed books do, then it reminds them to add it to their Bookshelf.

I've no particular concern as to how many items anyone has and would assume, given that books the the main sources for indexing on EYB, the numbers of other formats are extremely variable, given the number of countries around the world where we live. 

Originally Posted by: Jane

FJT - it's the number for each member under the Bookshelves tab on any book that the member would like changed. It shows a total number x against each member name, sorted highest to lowest. The number is books, magazines and websites added together. So it is misleading that it says x books when it is more than books. But I'm not sure the alternatives are better.

The member's other suggestion was to just show the number for books, ignoring magazines and websites. That is more palatable to me than using "sources".

I still struggled to imagine what you meant, but I almost never click on a book name to see who else owns it. Maybe the easiest thing to do (other than doing nothing at all which is my preferred course of 'action') would be to list the members' names who own that book and remove the tally of 'books' that they each have.  

Originally Posted by: FJT

I still struggled to imagine what you meant, but I almost never click on a book name to see who else owns it. Maybe the easiest thing to do (other than doing nothing at all which is my preferred course of 'action') would be to list the members' names who own that book and remove the tally of 'books' that they each have. 

FJT: I think of it as a way to check out the bookshelves of like-minded people, just like I would snoop bookshelves at a friend's house. I will click on a book to see who else owns it when it's an unusual book that not many have, or in a subject area that particularly interests me - I have found some new-to-me books that spark my interest that I may not have discovered otherwise.

Jane: I understand why the requester has mentioned this. I have always thought it odd when looking at the bookshelves list that it says "x books," and when you click through the "books" number doesn't agree, it's particularly noticeable when someone has quite a few magazines. I have 254 cookbooks, but on the bookshelves list it says I have 462 books. I've gotten used to it over the years, but it is odd.