Author name written as a book title

Hi!
I have just noticed that someone has stablished the name of an author as if it was a book. This is the first time I report something, so I am not sure if this is considered a bug of just an error. https://www.librarything.com/work/24424292

ANd this is the author: https://www.librarything.com/author/decespedesalba/

Thanks for your help!

There are lots of these. Pain in the *****, but not a bug. Not even an error. The member does it deliberately.

>2 MarthaJeanne: There are lots of these. Pain in the *****, but not a bug. Not even an error. The member does it deliberately.

I grant the point that it's not a bug, but that doesn't tell us what the right response is. If it's not a book, shouldn't it be changed, and how do we change it?

We can't change it. It is what that member has entered. The member has gone private to avoid the complaints.

Put it on the list: https://www.librarything.com/list/99/all/Things-we-wish-were-not-catalog-u-ed-on...

>3 waltzmn: The right response is to leave it alone.
Tim has said as long as they aren't actively trying to crash Librarything, people can catalog anything they want.

See also this list https://www.librarything.com/list/99/all/Things-we-wish-were-not-catalog-u-ed-on...

>6 gilroy: The right response is to leave it alone.
Tim has said as long as they aren't actively trying to crash Librarything, people can catalog anything they want.

And in fact I take advantage of that myself, using LibraryThing to catalog 78 rpm recordings (e.g.).

However, I am also careful to use the MEDIA setting ("Sound Recording: Record"). Not really adequate, since a 78 is not the same as a 45 is not the same as an LP! But it can be used as a filtering device.

Possibly a useful approach might be to strengthen that setting (if you want to enter a new... whatever... you must use a media setting) and make it more flexible? I see that it's possible to define one's own media settings -- but I never noticed that until I was checking it now. Seems to me that this would meet all needs.

>7 waltzmn: It's not directly effecting your catalog, so why are you wanting to make it harder on other people to catalog things?
As I said before, just leave it alone.

>8 gilroy: It's not directly effecting your catalog, so why are you wanting to make it harder on other people to catalog things?

My main argument is that it is bothering people, or this thread would not have come up. And it's bothering enough people that the person who committed the initial act has gone private. Seems to me that that matters.

Arguably it does affect me, though. Much of my library is extremely obscure, forcing me to either manually enter a book (which I don't want to do if the book is already in LT) or do very complex searches to try to locate the existing catalog entries. Anything that muddies the catalog may make those searches harder.

And I can't speak for anyone else, but I want my media information to be right. (And I want to be able to search on it, but that's a feature issue, not a bug issue.) My proposed solution has low user cost and high information value.

BTW -- the verb is "to affect." "To effect" is a verb, but this is not its meaning. American Heritage Dictionary (second edition, p. 21) has this usage note: "Affect and effect have no senses in common; therefore the tendency to confuse the words should be guarded against closely. As verbs, affect (the more common) is used primarily in the sense of influence (how smoking affects health) and pretense or imitation (affecting nonchalance to hide fear), whereas effect applies only to accomplishment or execution (reductions designed to effect economy; means adopted to effect an end)."

That statement was made many decades ago now, and it does seem as if the confusion is increasing, so perhaps in a few decades the distinction will not be drawn. (I try not to be a prescriptivist, though it's hard!) But for old fogeys like me, it is still meaningful -- and might possibly be something that comes up in a job interview or the like.

>10 gilroy: Yup. Pedantic, but I used the proper version. There is no change to YOUR data (cause) so it is not effecting your catalog.

Since Librarything is NOT a source, your reasoning about searching for obscure existing entries is invalid. You'd be better off searching WorldCat, finding the library that may have your book, then checking if Librarything has that library as a source.

Also, what your media information says is up to YOUR entry. No one else's library will change your media information. And if there are audio books, print books, and ebooks, they are all lumped together into one WORK. A single user's data is sacred. The admin doesn't change it, nor can any other user. One of the base concepts. We only change the Common Knowledge, which doesn't make any changes to the single user's data.

It was posted as a bug. There are a couple threads, all similar to this, all answered the same way. Just leave it alone. It does no harm.

To affect a catalog would be to change a catalog.
To effect a catalog would be a really unusual way of saying causing a catalog to come into existence.

You can affect something by effecting a change. But that's a far cry from effecting the thing itself.

In 99.9% of normal usage, affect is a verb and effect is a noun. If you're in any doubt (and you should be) then you should say you affect a thing.

There is no change to YOUR data (cause) so it is not effecting your catalog. If you want to say it that way, you'd have to say "it is not effecting (causing) a change in your catalog", but that's a roundabout and confusing way to say it's not affecting your catalog. In no way is it effecting (causing) your catalog itself.

Keep digging while you're in that hole if you want, but you're just distracting from the point of this thread.

>11 r.orrison:
My message has stayed the same since I first commented.
Not a bug, not a mistake. Leave it alone. As per Tim.

>12 gilroy: You've got a chance to learn here, take it.

>7 waltzmn: I am very often the first person to enter a book in German, whether that is the original language or a translation. Why should I have to use a media setting? I entered thousands of books before there were media settings, and I don't use them.

There is no way to prevent people from entering ratty data. You cannot clean up the ratty data in other people's catalogues. On the other hand, other people cannot change your data to suit their ideas of how it should look. Even if you required a media setting, there is no way to make sure it is accurate.

>14 MarthaJeanne: I am very often the first person to enter a book in German, whether that is the original language or a translation. Why should I have to use a media setting? I entered thousands of books before there were media settings, and I don't use them.

At this point we're getting far from the original topic, but let me give an example of why it might be advantageous to use them. It has to be my example, because I know it, :-) but probably many will have analogies.

My "library" contains books (of course), recordings, broadside ballads, and various other things. Taking just the first three: When I die, the collection will surely be broken up. If my executor has any sense, she will sell those things in different places -- the broadside ballads and the 78s both go to special dealers who know how and where to sell them. The difference in price for selling them in appropriate places is probably several binary orders of magnitude. Having them pre-classified on LT will make the task easier for my executor.

Now I can, and do, track this information via Collections -- e.g. I have a Collection specifically for 78s. But I started cataloging thing on LibraryThing before I was aware of Collections (or of Media, FWIW). So odds are that some of what I have belong in some Collection or other that I didn't know to assign it to. If they were assigned an appropriate medium, it would give my executor some additional help. And, for that, my library can gain information from the information in someone else's library.

Possibly we can't force people to do the pro-social thing (indeed, this seems to be the moral of current politics in the United States), but at least we can encourage it.

I'm annoyed when I come across these work pages and can't determine if it's for an autobiography with the author's name as the title, a photograph, or what. At least clothes and CDs are actual works-- goods-- not people. (People are not goods!)

When deliberately using a major part of a shared system not only in a divergent way but a contrary way, the least a polite member could do is clearly document what it is they're entering-- that is, that what shows in search results, on author pages as works, etcetera is not an actual work.

My wish is for this member to note that it's an author entered as a work. The title and to a lesser extent the CK disambiguation field would be good for that.

>9 waltzmn:, >10 gilroy:, >11 r.orrison:

The pedants’ group is over here: https://www.librarything.com/ngroups/6918/Pedants-corner

Could be a custom compilation of the named author's works. Or some other content that is about the author (mix of biography, images, works) which for convenience is titled as the author name, with the author's photo as cover image.

Eg. a collection of electronic books, if a library collects such items in a single entry under the author's name and photo, "Hi can I check out William Shakespeare please?" "Why certainly! Have it back in a week or there is a 5 bitcoin fine."

How about a disambiguation note along the lines "It is unclear what this work represents, do not combine." – if that is in CK, at least future people encountering the page know that it's a known unknown, to coin a phrase.

(As an aside, the cover image to these items often gets a flag as not a cover. Might be technically that's incorrect flagging/voting, as how can we know if it's really the cover if we don't know what the work is in the first place. Playing devil's advocate, if they do lump all an author's works into one compilation, and that compilation has the author photo as the cover, then at that point it is a genuine cover image, no? – Not that flagging has any ramifications, just thought it an interesting irony if while complaining about another's cataloguing we ourselves commit offences against LT standards.)

>18 Nevov: As an aside, the cover image to these items often gets a flag as not a cover. Might be technically that's incorrect flagging/voting, as how can we know if it's really the cover if we don't know what the work is in the first place.

I see your point, but a "cover" is a specific thing. A book has a cover, a DVD has a cover, I suppose a trash can has a cover -- but a leaf doesn't have a cover, a rabbit doesn't have a cover, a person doesn't have a cover. Possibly if we allow anything to be a "work," then we could say that a "work" can have an icon, and you can put whatever you want for an icon -- but that doesn't make it a cover.

So if you are willing to change the name of the "cover," then we perhaps can redefine what is "not a cover," but as long as it's called a cover, it needs to be an external item, generally with a label or identifying mark, that contains the actual work.

Thanks everyone, sorry for not catching up before.
Of course I will leave it alone if that it's the policy, but as someone has said, it would be nice that things were as accurate as possible.
Nice week everyone!