External links, now available on profiles too!
I like.

We are being showered with gifts at the moment. That means I have to revisit 10,000+ profiles and add the links. Maybe not today.

Just given it a run and it works nicely.

Many moons ago I raised the question about what are acceptable links. I think this topic needs to be revisited.

Great news. Though now I really wish I could sort my contributions by type... :P

Many moons ago I raised the question about what are acceptable links.

I think at least the following:
- Official sites
- Comprehensive fan sites
- Any well-maintained encyclopedic site

It would be great if there were other profile fields too, for basic information such as real names, DOB, POB, etc. It sometimes gets a bit "heavy" when the first sentence is like:

"Count Lev Nikolayevich Tolstoy (Russian: Лев Никола́евич Толсто́й; born 9 September [O.S. 28 August] 1828 – died 20 November [O.S. 7 November] 1910), usually referred to in English as Leo Tolstoy, was a Russian writer who is regarded as one of the greatest authors of all time."

I know this is how Wikipedia often starts their articles, but as our profiles are meant to be more of a quick overview of the artist, it would be nice if names and dates would have their own section, and the profile would actually start with the most important part ["Russian writer..."]

I agree that one is a bit of a mouthful, but it really comes down to personal preference.

Personally, I'm not a great fan of the way you format profiles as it is never immediately apparent to me if I'm dealing with someone who is alive or dead.

But I concede as a long time contributor to Wikipedia, probably my brain has been conditioned to see information in a certain format.

Are Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn accounts acceptable links?

There are some glitches with the Links formating for example when adding the link to the official site of WSOY it gives it the link title as soy.fi, even if the link in itself goes to http://www.wsoy.fi/

Just on a practical level, I don't think I could be bothered copying and pasting birthdates, death dates, profile, series, links to separate fields. It's bad enough removing redundant footnotes and correcting poor grammar. Maybe I'm lazy.

Well spotted, nothing gets by you lot! Look forward to seeing the edits pour in.

As regards relevance I think the types mentioned so far make sense. We can also take this on a case by case basis at some point a need for policy may arise.

We are also quite interested in crosslinking between the different *ogs sites (Discogs included - also for backlinks). Books to films to posters to music we think there's a ton of interesting connections to be made and getting the data is the first step.

Re. profile fields, that's probably worthy of its own thread? It does get a bit tricky because our credit system covers so many types of entities (companies, subjects, people etc). But worth thinking about for sure.

@brand0: Thanks for the heads up, that's a bug, we will investigate.

I have been racking my brain for a credit that I know that exists on Bookogs that has umpteen external links, but it eludes me at present.

I just added the external links for Prince on Bookogs, and made a visit to Discogs where the following sites are listed: princeestate.com, officialpaisleypark.com, Facebook, YouTube, officialprincemusic.com, instagram.com, SoundCloud, Twitter, vevo.com, whosampled.com, Wikipedia, princevault.com, Bookogs, Posterogs, Filmogs.

I know some of them are fine, but what about instagram, YouTube, SoundCloud, whosampled, and vevo. Would they be acceptable on Bookogs?

Personally, I wouldn't like to have a zillion (partially self overlapping) links on a profile and will probably limit myself to Wikipedia, official sites and other *ogs sites as I'm used to (exceptions prove the rule):

Take the example of Prince, to have all those links at discogs might make sense, but here?

Re. profile fields, that's probably worthy of its own thread? It does get a bit tricky because our credit system covers so many types of entities (companies, subjects, people etc).

Yeah, that did cross my mind too, but I'm sure there are ways of doing it.

Personally, I'm not a great fan of the way you format profiles as it is never immediately apparent to me if I'm dealing with someone who is alive or dead.

Not a problem - I understand that these are personal preferences, at least to some extent. I don't expect everyone to agree with me. That would be boring. ;-)

I actually adopted the method from another user as I wanted to keep the profiles formatted in the same way. I know that was in the early days, but I ended up liking it, so I continued it.

I have to admit that it's interesting to me that you'd value the alive/dead information over what the person does/did. For me the the professions/roles and what they have done are definitely the most important bits of information there is, and everything else is usually secondary.

And, to be exact, it's not really about the order of things, it's about everything being lumped in one sentence, and finding the information what you're looking for (be it the lifespan or their profession) is somewhat tedious.

But I'll see if I can come up with a suggestion, and/or open a new thread.

Much appreciated feature -- thank you very much to the developers. I'm wondering about the optional notes field available when adding links. Should that be used to add additional info about the link such as Official Site? That's what I did on the following Calumet Theatre credit.

https://www.bookogs.com/credit/257783-calumet-theatre

value the alive/dead information over what the person does/did

No, I don't value whether they are alive or dead over what they did. It is just that my eye scans for the words "is" and "was", their role, and nationality to construct a rapid history of the person. As I said it is probably due to conditioning.

I have always wondered if it was tsivihcra or you that came up with that format. Now I know the answer.

kitchi-gummi that looks fine to me. I have been adding the descriptor Official Site (Official Website) as well to urls that don't morph into descriptions.

Yikes, 40+ notifications telling me that external links have been added. I wish I could filter them. Could be karma for all my edits!

Thanks for the external links, it will definitely make things look nicer.

Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn (or others) should be acceptable, especially if they are run by the person or company you're crediting. I would only link un-official or fan sites it it really adds something.

I've found a lot of information about writers, photographers. etc. by their social media accounts. And LinkedIn is a great resource for seeing projects and past jobs they held.

Now, if we could get sorting/filtering. 😉

As I said it is probably due to conditioning.

Sounds like it. It makes sense that the conditioning would be somewhat different for encyclopedia and database users.

I have always wondered if it was tsivihcra or you that came up with that format. Now I know the answer.

I'm not sure if it was tsivihcra, but it's definitely possible. I don't really pay attention who updates the profiles, just what is being done. ;-)

I have never taken much notice of the author profiles on Goodreads, so I just had a quick look and I don't mind that format: https://www.goodreads.com/author/show/1455.Ernest_Hemingway and https://www.goodreads.com/author/show/498099.Peter_Corris#

Yeah, something like that would be nice. But like kalli said, it makes a bit complicated that we use the same profile for all kinds of entities.

To get back to the topic, the new link section is not being displayed on any of my mobile devices.

To get back to the topic, the new link section is not being displayed on any of my mobile devices.

This was a bug, should now be fixed.

I'm wondering about the optional notes field available when adding links. Should that be used to add additional info about the link such as Official Site?

@kitchi-gummi: Yes, the thinking was that if/when its not clear from the url what the link is you could add a note explaining what the link is about or why it is there.

This was a bug, should now be fixed.

Looks like it. Thanks. :)

A discussion about adding Bookogs, Filmogs links to the Discogs site is here - some people happy, others less so:

https://www.discogs.com/forum/thread/779277

''Are Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn accounts acceptable links?''
Any consensus on this? As someone else said this would be a good time to decide this.
I am currently going through my submissionS A-Z and have come across a few social media links and I am wondering if I should remove them or not?
(I haven't removed any)

As for linking to other ogger's sites, I am all for that. I can some in the Discog community are not so happy about it but,

''Are Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn accounts acceptable links?''
Any consensus on this? As someone else said this would be a good time to decide this.
I am currently going through my submissionS A-Z and have come across a few social media links and I am wondering if I should remove them or not?
(I haven't removed any)

As for linking to other ogger's sites, I am all for that. I can some in the Discog community are not so happy about it but,

Sorry posted before I finished...
As for linking to other ogger's sites, I am all for that. I can see some in the Discog community are not so happy about it
If we can browse Discogs and click on a link to see what books have been written about my fave bands... then that is awesome.

I can't see any problem adding Facebook and Twitter as they tend to be created by the person themselves. For me Linkedin is really useful as it shows the career of the person. This can be used for those profiles of completely unknown people to find out whether they are the same person who worked on other books.

The only issue I have with linkedin is can people read the profiles? I'm a member of that site, I could be wrong but I got the suspicion that if you've not joined the site you can't read all the profiles.

Have you got a profile with a linked in link? and I will see how it goes when you click on it. I am not a member of that site.

Here's one that I found Linkedin useful:

https://www.bookogs.com/credit/391915-david-curtis-2

I get to see a partial profile. His basic info is what I am able to view.

Current
CURTIS MEDIA LTD, Cruise international
Previous
What Cruise, SW Magazine, IPC Media
Education
St James Holy RC School London
Websites
Company Website
Then there is a small is a list a few of his previous jobs/positions before they ask you to join and ''view the full profile''

I don't have a problem with Facebook and Twitter accounts if they belong to the person in question.

The trouble with LinkedIn is if try to access the site multiple times on the same day and you are not a member, then it will block you from seeing the page. That is my experience anyway. On that basis, it could be argued that LinkedIn should not be added to External Links, but I do agree that it can be a great source of information.

I just tested it and I got 4 views of David Curtis' LinkedIn account until it blocked me on the fifth try.

Supernaut1970 if you get really bored you might like to work your way through some of my old username contributions: https://www.bookogs.com/users/anaideia and https://www.bookogs.com/users/bacchanalia
😉

Bloody hell that a lot mate, ha ha, no probs, once I have gone through mine ( it also gives me an opportunity to fix any mistakes I may have made and add empty profiles) I will get onto your stuff. I am bored all the time this time of year and I am not going travelling this year as normal so It should not be too long. before I get on it.

IMO public, official social media accounts are ok, be it Twitter, Facebook, Instagram or YouTube.

The trouble with LinkedIn is if try to access the site multiple times on the same day and you are not a member, then it will block you from seeing the page.

Interesting, it seems people are seeing different things.

All I'm getting is a relatively small banner ("View David Curtis’ full profile. It's free!") below the top section, and the profile still includes all the main details and his work history from 1970 to this day. And it stays the same no matter how many times I access the page.

But if people are getting completely blocked from viewing the LinkedIn profiles unless they get an account, then it's probably annoying to have something like that listed in the artist profiles. It can always be included in the submission notes for reference.

Interesting, it seems people are seeing different things.

I thought that might be the case, it could be a geo thing. I totally agree that if a link can't be relied upon to give all users free access, then the best place for them is in the Submission Notes.

Supernaut1970 I was only joking. I do admire your willingness to roll up your sleeves! By the way you are doing a great job. I think every country now has a Credit and a profile courtesy of your hard work. Thanks.

Thanks for the feedback. I'll leave the Linkedin page in the submission notes then. I tend to trawl most the useful info and put it in the profile anyway.

Thanks, Sexton I am always up for a big project.

I'm wondering if it is possible to have a drop down menu selection with "Official Website", because I'm getting fed up typing this repeatedly.

I thought this might happen. I see a user has provided links to online stores, including one for Amazon: https://www.bookogs.com/book/467141-madonna-como-um-icone

Are these links acceptable?

I'm starting to notice links to Facebook pages for artists that have been dead for decades. I know Zuckerberg has been very successful pushing his social media site but I doubt that he has succeeded in reaching the dead.

Are these links acceptable?

I'm wondering if it is possible to have a drop down menu selection with "Official Website", because I'm getting fed up typing this repeatedly.

I have a Notepad file with some commonly used phrases, words and Unicode symbols, so I can just quickly copy-paste them.

I don't think store links are relevant. Their pages might change, or even get deleted. I think the linked sites should be more information-based, especially the non-official ones.

Some dead artists do have Facebook accounts, maintained by the estate, some company or a relative, so I wouldn't outright ban them. But if it's just one of the pages that are automatically generated by Facebook based on Wikipedia, or some random fan page, then I would not link those.

I'm wondering if it is possible to have a drop down menu selection with "Official Website", because I'm getting fed up typing this repeatedly.

There's also a lot different text expansion tools. They let you setup a shortcut phrase that you type and then expands to commonly used words and phrases. Highly recommend them, saves you a lot of typing!

https://www.imore.com/how-customize-autocorrect-your-macs-keyboard
https://lifehacker.com/5844126/the-best-text-expansion-app-for-windows
https://lifehacker.com/5843903/the-best-text-expansion-app-for-mac

Re. shop links. I don't feel that those make sense no. Maybe guidelines similar to the Discogs ones are in order:
https://www.discogs.com/help/doc/submission-guidelines-updating-an-artist#18.3.2

kalli, thanks for supplying me with that information. I have always wondered if this facility existed but was too lazy to search for it. Sure would make my life a lot easier (if I can manage to remember the shortcuts).

Thanks mirva, you could be right about the estate setting up these Facebook pages. For example, https://www.facebook.com/MilesDavis/

I just find it a bit odd that it says I can contact Miles Davis via Messenger. I know technology is advancing but that seems a bold claim.

I've just updated Bookogs guidelines to be in line with Discogs with regards to shop links. Apologies for any confusion!

I just find it a bit odd that it says I can contact Miles Davis via Messenger.

Maybe they have secret line to the other side?

In Miles Davis' example it seems to be the record label (Sony) maintaining both the official website and the various social media accounts. He even seems to have a manager, a publicist and a lawyer... :)

I've just updated Bookogs guidelines to be in line with Discogs with regards to shop links.

Great, thanks!

I just need clarification on an external link. The C. S. Lewis official website has pages dedicated to each of his books, but they are also selling copies in various formats, for example the novel Perelandra: http://www.cslewis.com/us/books/ebook/perelandra/9780062196934/

As a resource I think the information listed is pretty minimal, so if this link is deemed unacceptable I won't be losing any sleep.

There is a similar situation with the external link for Harper Audio listed on https://www.bookogs.com/credit/468770-caedmon-records

Again minimal information and essentially an online store.

If its the official site I don't see a problem listing the C.S. Lewis or Harper Audio one. Discogs links to record labels that may be selling stock.

Essentially all official sites for publishers are there to sell you books. Many authors (or author estates) probably want you to buy the books as well. Should we bar all of them?

I made that comment because the guideline states: "18.3.2. Do not link to review pages, email addresses, shops or online stores, pages that are not directly accessible (for example, that require a log in or payment to view), or poor quality fan pages."

So, I was really hoping for clarification from the staff.

I think publisher and author sites need to be OK. Linking to Amazon or Barnes & Noble probably should be verboten, UNLESS the bookstore is also the publisher of the item in question.

I think publisher and author sites need to be OK.

I agree. They are not different from artist and label pages in Discogs, which have never been forbidden.

I think publisher and author sites need to be OK.
+1
These sites could have valuable information to add to the page, and their primary objective isn't as a marketplace or webshop, so I think these sites are fine

oops, forgive the formatting of that comment - only the first part of it is a quote. All opinions (no matter how poor) are my own :D

No problems, I just wanted to be totally certain what is permissible and what is not.

I notice that a couple of users have been adding Goodreads links to Credits. To my mind that is like advertising the competitor's website. Do the staff have a problem with Goodreads as an external link?

I don't see a problem with Goodreads links, those pages are sometimes very informative and maintained by the authors themselves no?

I guess Bookogs is in the same business as Goodreads, but they are still different as well.

Fair enough. Thanks for the clarification.

https://www.bookogs.com/work/424636-sliver
I usually link works from bookogs to films on filmogs and vice versa if there is a connection (source novel, novelization, making of report...) and linking a soundtrack master from discogs to the film on filmogs does make sense to me too (did it myself a couple of times). But I would never think of linking the movie soundtrack from discogs to a source novel on bookogs, as to me, that connection is too many corners around. Would you vote such a link as useful?

I tend to agree. If it was an audio book then I could see the point. Linking a soundtrack to a book seems a bit tenuous.

I was who made this edit on Sliver and now i agreed, i will remove. I am afraid i made same mistake previously so i will check these and remove links from Bookogs (good for Filmogs). Thanks for the comment BadMoon.

Back in the days, a movie soundtrack led me to a book: I had no idea about the movie (which was released direct-to-video a full year later in my country) when I saw the CD at a record store and found the artwork and the title interesting. I had a closer look to the backside, found the note: "Based on the Novel ... by..." and went right to the next bookstore, just to find it being out of print. Thanks to the www, I got it second hand later.

BadMoon you have offered a compelling reason for adding a soundtrack link to a book. You should have stopped when you were ahead.

Thanks foxmulder for the response.

BadMoon, first as i watched the film and as Enigma fan i right recognized the title song in the beginning i wanted to own the music too. But till now (as i searched the net) i didn't know it translated and published in Hungary in 1993!
AgathaCrustie you're right here is the reason to add Discogs link of the OST, thanks! ;-)

Stupid me :))
Besides, that story doesn't count as a reason, those were the 90s and no one could use this as a standard nowadays. ;)
@foxmulder: that music grabbed me too.

I can't wait so I grab the Hungarian edition for peanuts and added ASAP. My question belongs to this book but can be universal (without open a new thread): can i (we) add Cover Artist credit for artist appears on back cover? Thanks!
https://www.bookogs.com/book/507968-sliver

That is an interesting question because I have always interpreted the role "Cover Artist" to mean the person who creates the artwork rather than the person/s depicted in the illustration or photograph. But there is a similar role "Cover Art by" which means the same thing.

Does anyone know the exact meaning of the role "Cover Artist"?

I always thought "Cover Artist" was for crediting the artist, like Frank Frazzetta or Jeffrey Catherine Jones, whose painting or drawing is used on the cover.

While "Cover Art by" is the designer or artist that did the whole cover design including typography, layout and so on. But then, there is also "Cover/Jacket Design by" which, could be argued, is the same thing.

So, maybe somebody could better explain the differences between the 3?

That is closer to the way I treat these roles.

Cover Artist - a work of art by an artist that existed prior to the creation of the book
Cover Art by - an illustration or artwork commissioned for the book
Cover/Jacket Design by - specifically when someone is credited for cover/jacket design

I have seen the role Cover Artist used to credit someone appearing on the cover of a magazine for example.

I've always thought Cover Artist and Cover Art by are just the same thing. As neither of the credits are in the request thread, they might've been added by staff before the website was opened to public. IMO, we could get rid of one of them.

I have seen the role Cover Artist used to credit someone appearing on the cover of a magazine for example.

That is interesting. "Cover Model" would be more appropriate for that, as they are not always artists. :P

I agree "Cover Artist" and "Cover Art by" mean exactly the same thing and the definition I have given them is purely subjective. If I had to vote on eliminating one of them, then it would be Cover Artist as it is slightly ambiguous.

As for crediting artists, models, musicians, actors, and other sundry folk who appear on the covers of magazines, I would think the About/Subject adequately performs that role.

I've thought, the person who created the cover image is the cover artist and the person or the company delivering the image (like a photo agency) is to credit as cover art by.

To me the "cover model" falls into the about/subject category, at least on magazines.
On books, like on the Sliver example, I would give it a note like "Backside photo is an excerpt from a promotional image / poster of the movie adaption, showing lead actors Sharon Stone & William Baldwin".

I would give it a note like "Backside photo is an excerpt from a promotional image / poster of the movie adaption, showing lead actors Sharon Stone & William Baldwin".

I mean we need a dedicated credit role for/because this issue. Don't forget i am searching a solution too when i would like to find my love from my childhood Mrs Stone in the DB :-) and to find her not as a subject in a magazine but as she appears on a cover as well (note about this is a good solution but i don't feel enough).

When somebody appears on a Book and this person is only for the cover (even not mentioned in the book) then may i use About/Subject credit? For examples, the Sliver book: appears Stone and Baldwin (from the movie) on the front cover (maybe mentioned in the book). Here is a connection between the cover and the book but by another exaple here is no connection between the book and the cover (no reason for About/Subject credit);
https://www.bookogs.com/book/461704-szelhamosok-balekok
https://www.bookogs.com/book/435683-a-kikoto-hienai

I admit i used Cover Artist credit role because didn't find any better. [I miss a Credit List like on Discogs to clear other roles as well so thank you to all of you to clear this issue, i am curious what thought staff as they created this role "Cover Artist" before]

foxmulder I wasn't aware you had used "Cover Artist" for that purpose.

I was thinking of a number of music magazines where I have seen the person or group on the front cover credited as the "Cover Artist". I'm guessing the role wasn't intended for that purpose, but who really knows? It is clear that we all have a different opinion as to what it actually means. Maybe there is a need for the role "Cover Model" instead.

There is a list of credit roles, but they don't have definitions: https://www.bookogs.com/wiki/credits-list and I don't know how up to date that list is.

No, no AgathaCrustie, i just wouldn't use a wrong credit so i am very curious to know the final result (actually because language reasons i need double check the new credits what i didn't used before - i was sure about this role before).

I don't know how up to date that list is.

It is up to date now... now it just needs definitions. :-)

Noticed a typo there too, we have "Bureau Cheif"...

Maybe there is a need for the role "Cover Model" instead.

Yeah, I think the "Cover Artist" is just too ambiguous, and we should just get rid of it.

It is up to date now

Thanks for that.

I notice that a user has added an Italian website url to the Credit of German philosopher Karl Marx.

To my mind it is unwarranted and potentially the list of external links could number in the hundreds if everyone did the same. At present there is nothing in the Guidelines to prohibit this practice.

The primary language of the site is English, and I believe it should be permissible to add external links that relate to the nationality of the Credit but that is as far it goes.

I agreed with this ^^^ (there is same issue on Filmogs around Russian links).
I met also some Discogs related links to the French version of the Discogs site. I think this is because French user uses that version of Discogs and possibly don't realizes this. It is visible without editing the link: when Discogs link don't displays the artist name in brackets then the link go to French Discogs (but no yellow bulb).

Login or Register to post a reply to this topic.