Wow, the book pages changed format!


tsivihcra
1 year ago
The pages look good developers, thanks!
phasics
1 year ago
some work happening here, nice. It's better for long sentenced chapters. Also ANVs have no effect for book view for now.
tsivihcra
1 year ago
It's better for long sentenced chapters.
I still wish we had chapter fields, like the track titles at Discogs.
ksdfjsldfj
1 year ago
I foresaw a small update before summer vacation. Glad to see things move.

Despacito
teo
Staff
1 year ago
Thanks! Glad you all like it! More updates coming as well.

Also ANVs have no effect for book view for now.
Can you give an example of that?
teo
Staff
1 year ago
ahh, never mind. I see the problem. We'll get this fixed asap.
mirva
1 year ago
It's better for long sentenced chapters.
Very much so! It's also better for longer titles, the old view was a little bit "crammed" in several ways. The overall layout is so much clearer now.

I also like the updated logo. :)
MunnauQ
1 year ago
And we have a new bibliogs logo! Thanks
tsivihcra
1 year ago
I also like the updated logo. :)
And we have a new bibliogs logo! Thanks

Yeah, I love it too.
phasics
1 year ago
logo looks more academic now with this serif font :) i like it
sharpmath
1 year ago
Yes, I like the look of the new format, it's easier to read, and the new logo too!

But with this new change, I noticed the basic HTML formatting in the chapters section is not working. Or do I need to use a different markup, like on Discogs? I couldn't find any information, so I'd though I'd ask.
Auribus
1 year ago
I am glad others noticed the changes as I wasn't sure if I was hallucinating at the time. One moment I was using the familiar layout and then like magic something totally different. I agree it looks better.
alexl
1 year ago
Looks cleaner.
ahr2nd
1 year ago
Love the logo; welcome the new page design.

But with this new change, I noticed the basic HTML formatting in the chapters section is not working. Or do I need to use a different markup, like on Discogs? I couldn't find any information, so I'd though I'd ask.
Would like to know about this as well.

Anyone else notice that each book has a discussions page, now? I think that's excellent!
elahrairah
1 year ago
yep, looks great. well done dev team :)
holographs
Staff
1 year ago
Hi everyone, thanks for the feedback! Can you give me an example of a book page that is using HTML in the chapters section?
sharpmath
1 year ago
Here is one with HTML in the chapters section: https://www.biblio.gs/book/185108-Alternative-Press-153-April-2001
sharpmath
11 months ago
Any update on the HTML formatting in the chapters section?
holographs
Staff
11 months ago
Hi sharpmath, per our General Generic Guidelines we don't allow HTML in any part of the object data (https://www.biblio.gs/wiki/General-Generic-Guidelines-For-All-Databases#unicode-links-formatting-and-html). However, I think having the ability to add links and other basic formatting for some of these large text fields is a good idea. I'll have a talk with the team about adding Markdown or Discogs-like formatting codes for these large text fields like the chapters section.
sharpmath
11 months ago
Thanks for the reply.

The HTML function had worked before the change a month ago.
The preview on a book page looks correct with HTML tags before you save the entry.

And I think only the "bold" tag worked, because if I remember correctly the "italics" tag never worked for me. I never utilized any other formatting tags.

Also, HTML tags continue to work on the credit pages.
Example: https://www.biblio.gs/credit/174970-The-Legend-Of-Zelda

So, yes, it would be very nice to have a standard way to use markup tags across the entire site, whether it's HTML, Markdown or another method.
sharpmath
11 months ago
I should add that URL links and list tags worked too and continue to show in the preview on books pages.
ahr2nd
11 months ago
Discogs-like formatting codes would be fantastic.
phasics
3 months ago
Great to see new look of pages again. Needs some time to get used to and to check how it looks in some situations. Love the YEAR in the top under the title, but in my opinion the year should be the latest mentioned in all fields.
So this one should be 1981 instead of 1975 https://www.bookogs.com/book/302320-frank-zappa-y-the-mothers-of-invention
phasics
3 months ago
And this approach to choosing a year should also be used when one day sorting of books by year would be implemented. What do you think ?
xceque
3 months ago
Agree with phasics about the year - it makes no sense to show every edition of, say, Great Expectations as the first published or copyright date, or whatever is defaulted. They can't all be from the same date!

Also, the table row wraps for long credit property names when there's enough space for the full thing on one line.

Minor details, of course. Nice changes on the whole though :)
mirva
3 months ago
Love the YEAR in the top under the title, but in my opinion the year should be the latest mentioned in all fields. [...] And this approach to choosing a year should also be used when one day sorting of books by year would be implemented. What do you think ?
Agreed, and in general the page looks great. :)

But (of course there's a but) the only part I'm not fond of are the Credits, Date, and Identifying Codes sections. They are too crammed into a too narrow of a space, causing the wrapping issue mentioned above, which makes it it look like there are empty rows/missing credits/codes. See for example:
https://www.bookogs.com/book/13533-the-circle-of-bliss-buddhist-meditational-art

The sections also seem to be too close to each other vertically, and the alignment is weird compared to the rest of the page.

But these are just first impressions, maybe I'll get used to it...

Now that we're talking about the page - any chance to get a rating system? :D
elahrairah
3 months ago
i like it a lot, well done bookogs team.

(and well done subbers too!)
romeovs
Staff
3 months ago
Hi guys!

Thanks for the feedback.
I've rolled out a new version that includes some fixes based on what you've said. Hope you guys like it!
phasics
3 months ago
nice update! I also noticed headers probably should not include month and day like here ? so leaving just a year in the header? https://www.bookogs.com/book/70811-2001-a-space-odyssey
xceque
3 months ago
Or maybe parse as much of the date in to a long form version as possible. So that 2001 entry would read "July 2005" (when read on a system whose language is English :).
Anaideia
3 months ago
I see that "This Edition Published" has taken precedence over "First Published", however I think there needs to be an allowance when "Republished" or "Reissued" is present in a submission. For example: https://www.bookogs.com/book/130622-a-room-of-ones-own-and-three-guineas or https://www.bookogs.com/book/213796-alls-well-that-ends-well

I hope I haven't jumped the gun as I realize that a lot of tweaking is occurring at present.
phasics
3 months ago
Yeah, Anaideia is right. I didn't notice that. IMHO once again, the date in the header should be the latest from all date fields. As we collectors and book shoppers are interested in when the exact book copy was published/printed so we look at what's it latest date mentioned in a book. Isn't it ? Moreover when some day it will come to filtering and sorting by year probably it should be taken for those purposes too (latest date).
And one more note - grayed out notation of the date field isn't necessary IMHO, without that it looked perfect. Now it only distracts.
mirva
3 months ago
IMHO once again, the date in the header should be the latest from all date fields.
Agreed again.

I don't mind the notation, and I think in general the page looks great now. :)
xceque
3 months ago
I actually prefer the notation - just adds a bit of clarity and it's not too intrusive.
Anaideia
3 months ago
I agree, the notation clarifies exactly where the date was sourced. Less head scratching required.
mirva
2 months ago
I see that "This Edition Published" has taken precedence over "First Published"
Yeah, and "Copyright" takes precedence over "Printed"... Can't the date be the latest date, whatever it is?

For example here it would be ideal if the date was the printing date:
https://www.bookogs.com/book/322657-contemporary-american-monologues-for-women