Similar libraries!!!
(Excuse the exclamation points. I need to express my glee somehow.)
Check out similar libraries feature. It tells you whose libraries are most like yours, but not by adding up the number of shared books. That method is distorted by common books and by large libraries. For example, you don't share all that much when someone has Harry Potter—everyone has Harry Potter! It's much better to be the only two people sharing "The Joy of Scottish Lacework." Similarly, it doesn't mean much that you share 10 books with oakesspalding—he's got 2,100 of them.
I didn't want to just toss up a number, so it computes it four ways. First, it adjusts for book obscurity. Second it adjusts for library size. Third it combines the factors. And fouth it gives you everyone who makes the other three lists—your library doppelgängers, if you will.
Let me know what you think. It works wonders in my case. Zette's library is huge and very similar. Oakesspalding's library is much the same (although the fact that we give each other books for Christmas distorts it). Languagehat shares many of my interests, like Greek and even Hittite. CaveatLector is the best find—he has only 106 books so I would have otherwise overlooked him, but the nine books he shares with me are all obscure treasures.
Let me know if it works for you, and which of the measures is the most accurate.
Check out similar libraries feature. It tells you whose libraries are most like yours, but not by adding up the number of shared books. That method is distorted by common books and by large libraries. For example, you don't share all that much when someone has Harry Potter—everyone has Harry Potter! It's much better to be the only two people sharing "The Joy of Scottish Lacework." Similarly, it doesn't mean much that you share 10 books with oakesspalding—he's got 2,100 of them.
I didn't want to just toss up a number, so it computes it four ways. First, it adjusts for book obscurity. Second it adjusts for library size. Third it combines the factors. And fouth it gives you everyone who makes the other three lists—your library doppelgängers, if you will.
Let me know what you think. It works wonders in my case. Zette's library is huge and very similar. Oakesspalding's library is much the same (although the fact that we give each other books for Christmas distorts it). Languagehat shares many of my interests, like Greek and even Hittite. CaveatLector is the best find—he has only 106 books so I would have otherwise overlooked him, but the nine books he shares with me are all obscure treasures.
Let me know if it works for you, and which of the measures is the most accurate.
posted by Tim at 5:38 AM
24 Comments:
This is a great feature. I already knew a couple of those people had a similar library to mine but there are several on the list that I did not know about. Thanks for all the hard work in adding features to this program that makes it even more enjoyable and fun.
kaykwilts
Oh, that's really really cool. This idea is part of why I started using LibraryThing.
(I like the "eerily similar libraries" on the profile page too, and the way it sorts to have the books you have in common on the top when you click their name (did it do that before? I probably didn't notice if so), although it's kinda scary looking at the 4th list)
Ooh, neat!
Though, I'm confused as to the difference between the third and fourth categories of "similar".
It works well for me; matching me up with other folks interested in Religious studies. Great feature.
Have you considered adding directories for users? That is: make it so I can send people to librarything.com/username - or better yet (maybe as a paid feature?) subdomains: username.librarything.com?
Awesome site!
Interesting idea, though I've only begun putting in my books making the eerily similar lists key on single items.
At any rate, perhaps the report should weed out private libraries? My top twin says it doesn't share any books with me.
Re caveat lector, me too. Has anyone told her about this? I only know her indirectly...
And this similar libraries thing is fabulous.
Wonderful feature! Am amused to find that five of my 'separated at birth' names are people I know from LiveJournal (at the top is a sixth that I've friended on LJ because of our similar libraries), one of whom I know well IRL too.
Intermittently having weird results from Amazon.co.uk, btw; it swears blind that a title doesn't exist when it showed it to me on a previous similar search... is it something to do with sessions timing out or something somewhere being too busy? There also seems to be a bug in the [add books] search results so when two authors are listed for a title they all drop down one on subsequent titles on that page.
Changing tags - it doesn't retain apostrophes, so 'children's literature' kept being returned as 'childrens literature'. OI! NO! ;-)
And my author tag cloud appears to be broken at the moment - I have only one book by the author who takes up half the page!
Brilliant!:)
Do you have an RSS of your blog, so I can watch it through my livejournal friends list? *looks hopeful* (You've been slashdotted on LJ by several people on my friends list, including me!)
Wow, this is fantastic! It's rather neat to see that one of my RL friends who I don't even share that many books numerically is on my SL list. *click, click*
I can't make an LJ feed (not having a paid account) but would a community be okay?
Parelle - lj user librarything already exists (it's a community, and I started it about five minutes before reading your comment! Great minds... and all that), although I think Rillaith's RSS feed comment is also useful, since a lot of people prefer feeds to communities for one reason or another. Anyway, come join LJ librarything!
Rillaith, Parelle:
An LJ feed is at "library_thing" (I found it when I tried to add one just now). Me, I think a community would be grand as well.
There are some parts of the "shared books" that I don't quite understand. There will be a book that I know is in my library but that isn't marked with the yellow check in another user's library. I don't think this is all due to different editions, either, because when I click on the "shared" icon on their copy, it reports that I have a copy of the book (even though the yellow check isn't there), while in cases of an obviously different edition it just won't list me as having a copy at all. Is this a subtle gradation of similarity that I'm not getting, or just a bug?
Hmmmmm, that word "obscure" books makes me think a little.
obscure - not famous or acclaimed; "an obscure family"; "unsung heroes of the war"
Synonyms: unsung, unknown
If I really know who has my obscure books they won't seem as rare as they once were.
I think a sort list of manually listed books of other book collectors would be neat...... :*)
Re Caveat Lector: Me three!
I'm highly amused to find people on my blogroll amongst my doppelgangers. I think it's a terrific feature.
Sorry to be odd one out here, but I didn't find all that much congruity among any of the other "similar" libraries. That said, it was nice to see folks with the same books in areas like Kerouac and other beat poets. This will probably be of most use to folks with large numbers of English titles - or foreign titles in well-collected areas like Classics.
*sigh*
nifty! Thanks so much for all this.
Here's an idea: how about a thing that pulls up all the unique books? That is, books that are only in a single library? That way we could browse all the oddities.
I really love this!!! The "eerily similar" libraries feature is a marvel. I especially like the adjustment for book obscurity, which zeroes in on the unexpected matches with others, and that for those on all three lists, which is the best overall index. It'll be fascinating to see what happens when more of my books are listed: for now, I'm thrilled!!!!! Thanks!
I've just noticed that Rowling and Tolkien merit two entries on the top 25 authors list.
The new feature is a lot of fun! It's odd to see what those of us with books consider fun, though, isn't it?
I just moved to a new computer tonight, and I fear it's going to put me way behind on my cataloguing. How's that for bad priorities?
I notice you took away the "separated at birth" list, which I had found to be the most helpful in terms of pointing me to users whose collections *really* related to mine. Any chance of bringing it back, or is it causing server load issues?
AMVHoward: People were confused. All it was was a summary of the other three lists—adjusted for obscurity, adjusted for librarysize and adjusted for both. In a way, therefore, it was just recapitulating "adjusted for both." I decided the raw number—books shared—was a better starting-point, and the summary unnecessary. It's one advantage seems to have been that it was shorter and therefore felt more select.
Tim
I now want a copy of a book called "The Joy of Scottish Lacework" and I suspect you are just toying with my affections.
I really like the similar libraries funtion. At the very least, it has helped me find friends who are already here!
Post a Comment
<< Home