As I'm seeing more and more of these, I just want to confirm that this is allowed. It was at least frowned upon in Filmogs, but maybe it's different here.

For example

I get the feeling this might be aimed at me. Unlike your method of flooding the database with Work credits that have minimal detail, I go to the trouble of creating detailed Work credits and once I have done that then I will submit the magazine.

So just be patient, it is a work in progress. If you really have a problem with me then I suggest you complain to the staff.

It is interesting point that you have made, and just for clarification I have sent a message directly to the staff.

I realize apart from the magazine Work credits that I am working on at present, I have created Work credits for numerous series that don't currently have book submissions in the database.

The reason I did this was simply for the efficiency of using the 'Add one like it' facility to create consistent and detailed Work credits that have complex details such as links in the Notes to the Series credit page. Once all of the Work credits are created, then it also allows me to add all of the Work credit links on the Series page so that users can readily see if a Work credit has been created.

My feeling is that over time these Work credits will be utilised and hopefully it will make life a little easier for other users who may not have the time to create a detailed Work credit.

I get the feeling this might be aimed at me.

This is not aimed at anyone in particular. This is a discussion concerning database practices after seeing Work credits without publications in the database. I have seen them before this week, some of them are several months old, and I don't care who created them. That is not the point of this discussion.

There has been a couple of discussion in Filmogs where the staff has specifically said not to create a Film credit unless you're also submitting a Release with the film in it, and I was under the impression that the same applies here, for the same reasons. That is why I am asking.

Unlike your method of flooding the database with Work credits that have minimal detail, I go to the trouble of creating detailed Work credits and once I have done that then I will submit the magazine.

You do you. I'm glad you find updating Work credits enjoyable. I don't mind doing it either occasionally but I do enjoy submitting books/publications more.

That said, I really don't appreciate you belittling my - or anyone else's - contributions. We all contribute to the database in our own way, and contribute what we can, and what we find enjoyable.

I think this is a valid discussion to have. This is indeed a topic that's come up on Filmogs and I get it - the objective of 'ogs databases is to catalog physical items.

I also understand AgathaCrustie's perspective; it great to have detailed Works pages, and if it lightens the workload of a contributor of a book, that sounds like a pretty good deal.

If we're thinking objectively - what are the pros and what are the cons of adding Works before Books, and do those pros outweigh the cons? I'm curious to hear whether seeing a Work page with no books under it is confusing for others in the community? Is it helpful to have a Work prefilled when adding a book that hasn't previously been added?

the objective of 'ogs databases is to catalog physical items.

This could be just me, but creating a Work without a book is like creating a master release without releases. Allowing users to enter just Works (or Films) without a physical item attached to it might shift the focus to works, while our focus should be on books.

Also, while internet is somewhat reliable most of the time, there is also plenty of false information around. By having a book with the work in it at least confirms that the Work exists, and that the Work reflects the work in the book.

if it lightens the workload of a contributor of a book, that sounds like a pretty good deal.

What is the exact workload? The Works field is not mandatory, and it's not mandatory to update the Work. It's the same as with any other credit. Should we also add author credits without books to the database to lighten the workload? ;-)

it great to have detailed Works pages

Of course. But IMO that'll happen with time as well, like everything else. There are plenty of Work pages that need updating as it is, no one is running out of work here. :P

I can see both points here. I do like when I add one of my Sci-Fi books with 20 odd short stories in and most of the works have already been made, at first I was confused to see some with no entries underneath them but pretty soon I got what was going on and I don't see the harm in it and for me It's been useful and helpful and it helps me add more books rather than doing works for them, even though they are not mandatory I do feel obliged I should do them rather than leave them data free, so I really have no objection to this practice. I think we are all doing good works here folks and this database is starting to shape up and become something really cool.

Supernaut1970: "one of my Sci-Fi books with 20 odd short stories in and most of the works have already been made"

I am not sure that I would have created short story Work credits in this manner, but I could be wrong.

My only motivation is to make it easier for other users to negotiate Bookogs. It should be obvious to most people who know my history on this site that I am not rank hunter.

mirva: "I really don't appreciate you belittling my - or anyone else's - contributions

I thought I had rebutted the suggestion that I belittle the contributions of other users when you raised it in a separate Forum discussion two weeks ago: https://www.bookogs.com/forum/307708-naming-conventions-for-people

This accusation is completely unfounded and I find it highly offensive. If you have any proof that I am guilty of this behaviour then pass it on to the staff so they can deal with it.

I have been racking my brain for examples of short stories that I have created that don't have attributions, and remember that there are several Ray Bradbury anthologies that I created in this manner.

The reason for it was that I found it simpler to have all these stories in the database and then sort through several Russian collections that have long lists of stories that don't match any of the English language collections. For example: https://www.bookogs.com/book/121748-tiomnyi-karnaval

I was also using up to five different reference sources to verify the information before adding the Notes to the respective Works, which is probably something the average user wouldn't undertake (and that is not belittling anyone, it is just a fact). The end result is Ray Bradbury now has 395 Work credits which I consider to be more accurate than most other databases.

Sorry, but as an impartial reader I was also startled by the statement:

"Unlike your method of flooding the database with Work credits that have minimal detail, I go to the trouble of creating detailed Work credits and once I have done that then I will submit the magazine."

At first look it seems unnecessarily rude. Let's break it down...

Firstly, there is the perjorative sounding "flooding the database" and "credits that have minimal detail", qualified with the wording "your method", which makes it sound like a personal attack.

Secondly, it's compared against a preferred approach is presented as a superior "creating detailed Work credits" and implying that doing otherwise would be lazy "I go to the trouble".

Now here's the thing. I don't know a lot about the people I work with here. Particularly, I don't know if English is their first language. I don't know what their culture is. I don't know them as people. And I can't tell how any of these things are contributing to the tone conversation.

Any ideas how we might diffuse this?

OK, I think it might be time to lay all the cards on the table. I didn't intend to make this a personal grievance session, but if users are I going to make the assumption that I am some sort of arrogant pig, then I will detail my interactions with mirva over the past two weeks.

Two weeks ago mirva inferred in a separate Forum that I was belittling the contributions of other users which seemed to me a complete manipulation of the comment that I had made and in my opinion was completely unwarranted.

About a week ago I noticed mirva had deleted "USA" as the location on a Work credit that I had created and replaced it with "New York" along with the submission note: "Exact location". I don't want to be pedantic but New York is a state and in my opinion doesn't really meet the criteria of "exact location".

I was slightly amused by the comment, so I thought I would research the company and discovered that they are based in Hoboken, New Jersey. I can't remember if I just commented in the history about the company's address or actually changed it in the submission, but I do remember I supplied links to the company website that had their address plus a Wiki link that confirmed this information. mirva then provided some links that showed the company was located in New York City during the 1970s. The information provided the full address, so I added these details to the submission and commented something like "Great, now we have their exact location. You wouldn't have their telephone number by any chance?" That was my attempt at humour which I gather some people don't appreciate. The reply I received was, No I don't but if you have a problem with me then try contacting me via a PM but don't vandalise the database. I was taken aback by this comment because at no time did I vandalise the database. My reply was: no I don't have a problem with you, in fact I have the deepest respect for your abilities.

A couple of days later, I noticed mirva was deleting "USA" on numerous Work credits that I had completed and was replacing it with "Indianapolis, Indiana" and making the comment in the submission notes: "Exact location". In my opinion USA is just as valid as the city and state, so I asked mirva to stop deleting this detail, suggesting instead these two details could be combined. My request was ignored and in the next 24 hours more Work credits were edited in the same fashion. I then posted a comment reminding mirva that removing valid data is a breach of the Guidelines and if it continued then I would have no other option but to file an SR. mirva then asked if I had a problem combining both details. As I had already suggested this solution I was a bit surprised and simply commented that was fine by me.

Another of my edits was on a series Credit which was titled (XYZ) Series. In all the series Credits that I have looked at, none of them include the word "series", so I removed the word from the title. The next thing I get a notification with just a link to the author's website which showed the name as (XYZ) Series. I made the comment that I found the inclusion of the word Series ridiculous as it is inconsistent with all the other series credits in the database and gave two examples of James Bond and Sherlock Holmes. After half an hour I then decided to revert my edit because in all honesty at the stage I had a gut full of the petty arguments. I did post the comment that I had reverted my edit because in the end I don't give a toss whether the title includes the word "Series" or not and I would hate to be accused of removing valid data.

Yesterday I received a notification resulting from a comment posted by mirva in a submission querying why I was adding Work credits that had no attributions and went on to inform me that this had been discussed in the Filmogs Forum and the practice had been banned. I was just about to respond to that comment when I noticed this Forum thread. If the two weren't connected then it sure was one hell of coincidence.

As I have been writing this reply, I have been doing some soul searching as to whether I want this sort of hassle. The simple answer is no I don't. One of the great things about computers is they have an off switch.

To the staff and all the great contributors (I won't try to name them because I am sure to forget someone who is very deserving and you know who you are) keep up the great work. I do hope the site goes from strength to strength. Adios.

@AgathaCrustie, I, for one, do appreciate your contributions to our community. I hope that you will reconsider your decision in time.

I really didn't want this thread to turn into this, and as an introvert I still don't want to. But it seems that there are also database glitches in play, so I need to reply.

First, and perhaps most importantly, I have never received notifications of the comments from AgathaCrustie where he says he said to stop deleting anything, or suggest combining the two. I only received the notification for the one where he threatened to file a SR if I ever did that again on his submissions. As he has overreacted in a similar way in the past (he has apologized for it), I wanted to confirm the next time that he was ok with the way I had entered it.

Second, I'm used to questions and disagreements about database practices taken to the forum, and discussed with other database users instead of two users agreeing on them on their own. Forum threads like this are a standard practice in Discogs, and are in no way meant as a personal attack. I never said that this thread wasn't connected to his yesterday's additions, just that this is not about him, or aimed at him in particular. I wanted everyone's opinions, including his, and I still do. I wanted to discuss this so that everyone would be on the same page.

There is already a thread for the publication location issue, so if anyone has anything to add to that, please use that thread: https://www.bookogs.com/forum/757-publication-location

It's unfortunate that he decided to close his account before I even had the chance to reply. Looks like he had a problem with me after all. If he chooses to return once more, I'll gladly talk things through. Humans = hassle.

I have never received notifications of the comments

Receiving notifications is indeed a game of chance.

I am really sorry AgathaCrustie left us. Very sad. And seems his decision is decisive although i try to persuade him.
He helped me and i am sure other begginners too, no matter it was because my bad English or about how to add correctly books, credits, etc.
I started on Discogs more than 10 long ago and i met this kind of help rarely. Thanks to the new development of Bookogs (very cool!), as i count during the years with his last different accounts he added more than 600 Books, 8,000 Works and 10,500 Credits! and with this, i think he is/was the absoute number one contributor here. He always, regurarly checked other user's work this way he was a perfect control for us, for the site.

OK, not to make this threat a memory page, in my huge opinion if it is forbidden to add Work with the "add one like this" option then should remove this from the Work page.
I hate to re-edit a fresh contribution where i need to add a name variation for a new Work and it would be much easier to make first the new Work itself.
Discogs mentioned above: yes, there is no possibility to create master Release or Credit this way. But Discogs is not Bookogs because couldn't. I can listen only an audiobook. :-)
Thanks

I hate to re-edit a fresh contribution where i need to add a name variation for a new Work and it would be much easier to make first the new Work itself.

There is nothing wrong with that. I was referring to instances where the user is just creating a Work page, but has no intention of submitting a publication, not even afterwards.

if it is forbidden to add Work with the "add one like this" option then should remove this from the Work page.

Well, it can be also used in the way that you described - and that can be applied to all credits. In Filmogs the Film credit (their Work credit, if you're not familiar with the site) is always created separately from the release, and they don't allow adding just Films.

I was referring to instances where the user is just creating a Work page, but has no intention of submitting a publication, not even afterwards.

I see. I think i understood your point earlier too. Also i think users who likes to create new entries are happy to add new Works or any other Credits first time to the DB.

Thanks to those who contributed to the original conversation here. Seems like we're close to a consensus in being against creating Work pages independent of Book subs, correct?
I agree that if we'd prefer for these 'master' pages are not created without a release then the option shouldn't be available. I'm not sure how much work this is technically to implement, but I'll follow that up.

I think the consensus is we are for the creation of Works before a book has been submitted. I can only see one user against it.

Yeah, so far the other users who have participated in the discussion seem to accept creating works without publications. Even if I don't get it (this is supposed to be a book database), I'm ok with it. To be consistent, then it should be acceptable to create any credit without a publication.

Also, it would be nice if Filmogs allowed it then too. Or is it ok if the two sites have such different approaches?

I agree that if we'd prefer for these 'master' pages are not created without a release then the option shouldn't be available. I'm not sure how much work this is technically to implement, but I'll follow that up.

Otherwise the site's guidelines (to be found under https://www.bookogs.com/wiki/bookogs-rules-and-guidelines ) might need some updating too:
"A Work cannot be added without a physical version of this work first being entered to the database."

To be consistent, then it should be acceptable to create any credit without a publication.

I guess it's me, but I don't see the connection.

Or is it ok if the two sites have such different approaches?

Wouldn't be the first.
Random example: at filmogs the series credit is only on films, not on releases and it's the other way around at bookogs.

Personally, I don't think it is necessary to enter a work without a submission, .

I guess it's me, but I don't see the connection.

Well, like the Work pages, all the credit pages also have an "Add one like this" option. Pretty much the same arguments could be used what has been used for Works.

Of course I would rather see this done with time and sourcing the information from the publications because the information online does not always match what is on the publication: I've seen differences in spelling, years, location, etc.

Wouldn't be the first. Random example: at filmogs the series credit is only on films, not on releases and it's the other way around at bookogs.

Yeah, I know there are some differences like that, but - at least in my opinion - this would be a lot bigger difference. In Discogs it's not even possible to create a master release without any releases.

But if the majority really likes the possibility to create Works (and credits?) without publications, then I'm not going to stand in the way. Discogs isn't a perfect place in my eyes either. ;-)

Login or Register to post a reply to this topic.