Hey everyone,
Just wanted to share a few new things on the site in case you haven't seen them yet:

  • Sensitive content checkbox
    We’ve added a checkbox in the right column of the submission form to mark if your submission contains sensitive or offensive material. This generally pertains to pornographic or adult, graphic violence, and hateful imagery. As this fairly subjective, we ask you to use your best judgement and be respectful of other contributors’ judgement. Please be clear about your decision in the submission notes. If you're not sure, feel free to ask us or discuss in the forum.
    Your settings will be ‘Safe Search’ by default, so if the sensitive content box is checked on a submission, the item won’t show up in your search results or on browse pages. The item will still be viewable if you go directly to the URL. You can turn off Safe Search on your Settings page.
    If you disagree with another contributor's decision to mark a submission as sensitive, ask for more details in the History comments section, or start a conversation in the forums. Please be polite and respectful even if you disagree with another contributor’s views.

  • Improved search dropdown
    The improved search dropdown shows you more details of possible matches, like images, and the page type (e.g. book, work, credit). Skip landing on a search results page and go straight to the item you’re looking for.

  • External links
    The 'Links' section in the submission form is to add information sources, like Wikipedia, as well as to link to Artist or Release pages on Discogs and other 'ogs sites (e.g. Filmogs, Comicogs, Posterogs). Please note that links to other marketplaces and online shops aren’t permitted in this section. There’s more on this in the guidelines.
    Another cool thing with the Links section - try adding a YouTube link! When you submit, the video will appear in the right column, like on Discogs. Think live readings of book excerpts, or lectures and talks about works.

  • Autosave on the Submission form
    Ever entered a whole form of data and accidentally closed the window or hit the Back button? We’ve added a safety-net. If this happens, just reopen the submission form and everything you previously added will be there. Please note this only applies to new submissions, not edits.

Thanks for all your submissions and for hanging out with us. More updates soon!

All good stuff, can we add youtube links to full audio books?
Great that we have autosave, I have lost a few long submission after accidentally clicking the page away. A save to draft feature would be even better though, but I am happy with this at the moment.

Sensitive content checkbox

Is this to apply only to imagery, or also to other content like the chapters list?

can we add youtube links to full audio books?

Yeah, I think as long as there are no copyright or embedding restrictions on them this is fine. You can usually find this info on the YouTube page.

A save to draft feature would be even better

It would! Hopefully we can do this in the future

Sensitive content checkbox - Is this to apply only to imagery, or also to other content like the chapters list?

Yep, that checkbox applies to all content on the page

Thanks for the clarification. :)

No problem, thanks for pointing that out

cool, nice work!

Has anyone used the sensitive/offensive checkbox on an entry yet?

Has anyone used the sensitive/offensive checkbox on an entry yet?

I'm curious about this too. Is there anything in the database that is that offensive?

Maybe the adult magazines as a start, only because they have nudity on the cover.

And, yeah, I understand that some my not find nudity offensive, but in the US they usually come in a plastic bag that shows only the title. And most parents wouldn't want their kids seeing the covers.

I understand using the checkbox for adult magazines. After all, those are pornography.

I guess I'm one of the people who don't find nudity in itself offensive, and don't really like the idea of using it as a criteria.

I used it last week when I subbed https://www.bookogs.com/book/481220-index. It’s Index by Peter Sotos. If your familiar with him then no description of what’s to be found inside is needed. If your not I mentioned in the release notes my reasoning.

But I will say that using a form of censorship even though it’s self-censorship was wholly disconcerting to me. I used it as I was trying to conform to the chosen order here though I disagreed with tagging it as such. The written content of the book is cursorily vile and even in a considered consumption at least disturbing.

I would happily agree that we shouldn’t be marking these books as such based off of the written content and maybe we should agree to explicit pornography/gore on the cover artwork to be something more reasonable to have a censor button for. At least that is something that someone might not want to stumble across while browsing. The thing is that as of now Staff has indicated they want us to use the button for content as well even though the content is not visible on the release page. The reasoning behind that I do not understand though.

After all, those are pornography.

Well, not per definition ;)

I don't have a problem if those magazines get checkboxed; although we're quite relaxed about nudity and images of it over here (including myself), I would always vote for "no adult material for children's eyes".
But we are not going to vote every glimpse of a nipple or images of special bodyparts (like on antique statues or paintings) as offensive!?

The thing is that as of now Staff has indicated they want us to use the button for content as well even though the content is not visible on the release page.

I didn't understand it that way. I would have never thought of using the button on content not visible / readable on the item's page.

Well, not per definition ;)

I thought adult magazines and porn magazines are the same thing? If not, then I stand corrected. :-)

But we are not going to vote every glimpse of a nipple or images of special bodyparts (like on antique statues or paintings) as offensive!?

Yeah, I hope not.

The thing is that as of now Staff has indicated they want us to use the button for content as well even though the content is not visible on the release page. The reasoning behind that I do not understand though.

Well, as it affects search results, I do understand the reasoning. It's not only the images that can be offensive, but the subject can be as well. Pornography is very visual but there are some less visual subjects that can be considered highly sensitive/offensive.

I thought adult magazines and porn magazines are the same thing?

I've found this definition of porn, that:would not fit to stuff like Playboy magazine (which I would classify as adult material without a doubt):
"Pornography is any sexual representation that drasticly directs, in a way inciting the sex drive, to degrade a person to the mere interchangeable object of sexual desire or activity of any kind. If, for example, an extreme focus of the camera on sexual acts as well as the sexual organs of the performers takes place and if this merely serves the sexual stimulation of the user, one speaks of pornography."

It seems to me that my understanding is possibly not what is desired by Staff/users here? I would prefer to uncheck that box on my submission. So is the "content" of the book not relevant to the decision but simply what appears on the submission page? If so then nothing on my submission is for example offensive and does not need that box checked, correct?

... to mark if your submission contains sensitive or offensive material. This generally pertains to pornographic or adult, graphic violence, and hateful imagery.

@JoshPeer:
If this would be my submission, I wouldn't use the checkbox on it, as it features no offensive material, neither in the text, nor in the pictures.
But this is just my personal opinion.

Has anyone used the sensitive/offensive checkbox on an entry yet?

There was a particular grindcore zine entry that we received a few tickets about which I've marked as sensitive/offensive. The image was an illustration but I definitely understand why some people found it uncomfortable.

I will say that using a form of censorship even though it’s self-censorship was wholly disconcerting to me.

I get that; that's why we've chosen this route rather than removing anything from the database as a sort of compromise.

Staff has indicated they want us to use the button for content as well even though the content is not visible on the release page.

It shouldn't apply to the content of the book or work that isn't shown in the submission, just whatever is visible on the page if it could be considered offensive. An example of this could be a chapter title that contains hate speech or slurs. In my opinion, that Peter Sotos submission doesn't need to be marked sensitive/offensive.

But we are not going to vote every glimpse of a nipple or images of special bodyparts (like on antique statues or paintings) as offensive!?

Noooo please no! While using an algorithm would be easier, they still kinda suck for things like that. Facebook and Instagram get it wrong all the time. Your best judgement on things like renaissance art vs. porn is appreciated!

I hope these clarifications help a little bit. We've intentionally avoided being too prescriptive as we don't want to tell you what's offensive and what's not, but sorry if it's a little vague. If it helps, we've been thinking of this checkbox as a NSFW setting - would you be comfortable viewing this page in front of your colleagues, or if it popped up on-screen during a presentation?

would you be comfortable viewing this page in front of your colleagues, or if it popped up on-screen during a presentation?

Well, if we pull the line THAT high, I'm definitely fine with it. ;)

Glad I got it wrong ;)
This makes much more sense, I incorrectly interpreted the "content" part initially when I read that.

Apologies that it wasn't clearer! Glad this helped clarify

great to see we now have navigation in an author's page by works

Really enjoying the new look authors and credit pages.

The Work credits have finally emerged into the light of day. I do hope they are finally grouped apart from the book credits at some stage as it is a bit of a muddle.

I realise that sounded like a backhanded compliment. I'm sure there is a lot of tinkering to be made. It is good to see the site progressing.

hey everyone, glad you like these new features. As always feedback is appreciated.

@AgathaCrustie

The Work credits have finally emerged into the light of day. I do hope they are finally grouped apart from the book credits at some stage as it is a bit of a muddle.

Do you mean that it should be different type of credits for works or just that they should be browsable in a different way? You can already browse just the works for a credit using the filters in the sidebar. For instance this link should take you to just the works by your (almost) namesake: https://www.bookogs.com/credit/25666-agatha-christie?type=work

Yeah, loving the new features, It would be great if we could have something similar for our profile page. I would like to see my contributions split into credits, books and works, this would make editing stuff a lot easier.

Thanks kalli, I only noticed the addition of the sidebar after I wrote my comment, so the filter does take care of that.

Really enjoying the new look authors and credit pages.

Same here. :) Great to be able to see an author's works.

One thing though... any chance to give the profiles a bit more width? It seems like there's a lot of white space on the sides.

It took me awhile to realise that the Wiki and Forum buttons have been separated on the top menu bar. That's an improvement.

And also in Explore the list of Format/Genre/Language is showing the top ten of each permanently (which sort of makes the more/less buttons redundant). I would love to be able to see the entire list of languages again.

good catch @AgathaCrustie. Thanks for the heads up, we'll try to get that fixed asap.

This should now have been fixed, thanks again for the heads up @AgathaCrustie.

I would like to see my contributions split into credits, books and works, this would make editing stuff a lot easier.

+1

In reference to the sensitive content filter.

I fully understand that what is acceptable to one person may be abhorrent to someone else, but I notice that a user has just ticked the sensitive content box for the cover of a Frank Herbert novel which has an illustration of a naked female robot: https://www.bookogs.com/book/150134-the-heaven-makers

Personally, I think this is unnecessary. The image is not pornographic. I would hate to see someone with a low threshold of tolerance for nudity, tick the sensitive content box for every image that shows an exposed breast or buttock on this site.

I've added some more details the guidelines about the sensitive/offensive content checkbox in the hopes of clarifying a bit more and encouraging people to distinguish between pornographic and artistic nudity: https://www.bookogs.com/wiki/bookogs-general-guidelines#sensitive-or-offensive-content
I've started a conversation in the History section of the Frank Herbert. I think this could be reasonably be found on the shelves of a bookstore

Thanks for that. Maybe we could hand out some fig leaves.

I take it that the new "light bulb" icon indicating that "This page on Discogs does not have a link that comes back to this page. Edit the page on Discogs to add a link back here in the URLs section" is a work progress, because at present it is displaying even when a link exists.

The listing of the image guidelines on the image editing page is a great idea. Hopefully, users might just look before they leap.

The listing of the image guidelines on the image editing page is a great idea.

It is, though the list of recommended image should definitely include the title page. It is far more important than for example the spine.

Good point. I would much prefer to see an image of the front cover, back cover, and the credit (colophon) page before anything else. An image of the credit page would greatly assist in verifying data on this site.

I see the Discogs "light bulb" link indicator has returned and is working as it should.

I usually remove the titles from the end of the links and i left only the numbers. If i do this way the bulb will be on while the link already added to the reffed page on Discogs.

If i do this way the bulb will be on while the link already added to the reffed page on Discogs.

Now tested and seems it has been corrected/solved: no bulb next to the short link!
Short link added: https://www.bookogs.com/credit/499484-tamasi-aron
Long link added: https://www.bookogs.com/credit/436440-kosztolanyi-dezso

Not sure if I understand what you are doing. When I add a link I copy and paste the complete url.

https://www.bookogs.com/credit/436440-kosztolanyi-dezso
https://www.bookogs.com/credit/436440
are the same. If somebody change the artist name on discogs, both will work just the numbers will stay the same.

It is, though the list of recommended image should definitely include the title page. It is far more important than for example the spine.

Thanks for the feedback everyone. We will add title page. Anything else you should be mentioned there?

To be honest it was a bit hard to determine what the definitive names for those pages was indicia, impressum, colophon, copyright page and so on.

For the external link, full links are preferred, as people have noticed links with just the id part will work but full links are preferable it makes it easier to determine what the page is linking to.

full links are preferable it makes it easier to determine what the page is linking to.

Good point, wouldn't thought, thanks!

To be honest it was a bit hard to determine what the definitive names for those pages was indicia, impressum, colophon, copyright page and so on.

You're not the only ones... Maybe instead we should ask for "any parts of the book that include publishing, printing, and edition information", or something like that? Describe the content instead?

I mean the problem with the term "colophon", for example, is that it can mean:
1) The identifying inscription or emblem from the printer/publisher at the end of a book
2) The same emblem/data on the title page
3) The modern copyright page on the verso of the title page

Ideally these should be all included in the images, but if people think it's the same as the copyright page and nothing else, then they might leave the other two out.

Also, I think there were some discussion about this a long time ago, but are images of the actual contents of a book/magazine allowed?
See p.ex. https://www.bookogs.com/book/133618-the-ultimate-music-guide-kate-bush

actual contents of a book/magazine allowed?

This subject is covered in the Image Order Wiki page: https://www.bookogs.com/wiki/image-order

"3. Avoid uploading pages of the book's content itself. We are here to document the existence of the book and it's data, not to spread copyrighted information."

It might be helpful if that directive was added to the Bookogs Rules and Guidelines under Images.

Image Order Wiki page

Haha, I didn't think to look there. I just looked at the image guidelines because I thought it'd be there:
https://www.bookogs.com/wiki/image-guidelines

I also somehow missed the Image Order page in the wiki too. Couldn't have put #3 better, i'll add that into the guidelines

falsepriest wrote:

Sensitive content checkbox

Any chance to change the placement of the checkbox, or have a warning pop up when it's clicked or something?

I've accidentally clicked it quite a few times, and I've noticed other users doing it too.

mirva wrote:

Any chance to change the placement of the checkbox, or have a warning pop up when it's clicked or something?

I've accidentally clicked it quite a few times, and I've noticed other users doing it too.

+1. Plus upgrade the search engine while working with the edditing submission page. It'll be more convenient plus it'll help to decrease amount of duplicates which is high enough here

Login or Register to post a reply to this topic.