Open Library

Bug #513532
Comment #13

Comment 13 for bug 513532

Revision history for this message

George (george-archive) wrote on 2010-02-04:

#13

Overall - looking really good!

1. First step doesn't validate for Publish Date in the future
- I entered Published in 9999, and it let me get to the next step
- We should do something like:
  - Stop people at the first step
  - Highlight the Published Date field
  - Display a flash message at the top - something like "Are you sure this book was published in {the date they entered}? Please check the date, and make sure it's not too far in the future."
- It added my erroneous "9999" edition: http://upstream.openlibrary.org/works/OL11277922W/Heavy_water_and_other_stories

2. I presumed that the search for a match would look for matches in Title AND Author. When I tried to add "Heavy Water" by Martin Amis, it certainly found the match, but it was at the bottom of the list of 10 Works whose titles matched "Heavy Water," and matches 1-9 were not by Martin Amis
- Title AND Author match should be at the top
- We should consider excluding matches that aren't ANDs for Title and Author

3. Why is the published date in the Match Step in [brackets]?

4. We should display Author as a Role, even though it's been added from another point of entry. Perhaps it should be non-deletable.

5. I successfully added a new edition of Heavy Water (2000, Vintage International). I then tried to add the same edition again. Identical values in the first step of Add Book.
- It let me.
- I would expect it to say "We already have a record for the 2000 Vintage International edition of Heavy Water by Martin Amis. If you'd like to add more information, please, feel free!"
- So, after I press "Add" on the first screen, the search should run, and if it finds a match, it should take me to the Edit Edition screen with that message at the top. Perhaps not a message that slides up though, since it's important to comprehend it.
- After I clicked ADD, it took me to step 2, where it showed me the list of SOLR matches (see point 2 above). I clicked on the matching Work -- Heavy Water by Martin Amis -- and it took me to the step I mentioned. I'm suggesting that if we can, we should remove Step 2 in this case, where there is a precise match for Work AND Edition.
  - A copy note: When I got the the Edit Edition view, it showed me this:
"We already have a record for Heavy water and other stories, but we didn't know about the 2000 Vintage International edition. Thank you! You can click on the tabs below to tell Open Library more about this book."
  - This seems wrong, in two ways:
   1. It should have found a match for the 2000 edition I just entered - but, wait - I suppose that's because SOLR isn't being updated on-the-fly yet... OK :) Golly gosh, we need those updates!
   2. It should (only) say "We already have a record for the 2000 Vintage International edition of Heavy Water by Martin Amis. If you'd like to add more information, please, feel free!" and the note should be highlighted in some way to make it stand out.

6. If I manage to enter a new Work and a new Edition, on Step 2, we should note under the main page heading something like "Thank you for adding that book! Any more information you could provide would be wonderful!"

7. Looks like Author info didn't save: http://upstream.openlibrary.org/books/OL24041656M/Australian_Women%27s_Stories
(I did see her in the pick list - Kerryn Goldsworthy, and picked it rather than adding a new author entry)

Overall - looking really good!

1. First step doesn't validate for Publish Date in the future
	- I entered Published in 9999, and it let me get to the next step
	- We should do something like:
		- Stop people at the first step
		- Highlight the Published Date field
		- Display a flash message at the top - something like "Are you sure this book was published in {the date they entered}? Please check the date, and make sure it's not too far in the future."
	- It added my erroneous "9999" edition: http://upstream.openlibrary.org/works/OL11277922W/Heavy_water_and_other_stories

2. I presumed that the search for a match would look for matches in Title AND Author. When I tried to add "Heavy Water" by Martin Amis, it certainly found the match, but it was at the bottom of the list of 10 Works whose titles matched "Heavy Water," and matches 1-9 were not by Martin Amis
	- Title AND Author match should be at the top
	- We should consider excluding matches that aren't ANDs for Title and Author

3. Why is the published date in the Match Step in [brackets]?

4. We should display Author as a Role, even though it's been added from another point of entry. Perhaps it should be non-deletable.

5. I successfully added a new edition of Heavy Water (2000, Vintage International). I then tried to add the same edition again. Identical values in the first step of Add Book.
	- It let me.
	- I would expect it to say "We already have a record for the 2000 Vintage International edition of Heavy Water by Martin Amis. If you'd like to add more information, please, feel free!" 
	- So, after I press "Add" on the first screen, the search should run, and if it finds a match, it should take me to the Edit Edition screen with that message at the top. Perhaps not a message that slides up though, since it's important to comprehend it.
	- After I clicked ADD, it took me to step 2, where it showed me the list of SOLR matches (see point 2 above). I clicked on the matching Work -- Heavy Water by Martin Amis -- and it took me to the step I mentioned. I'm suggesting that if we can, we should remove Step 2 in this case, where there is a precise match for Work AND Edition.
		- A copy note: When I got the the Edit Edition view, it showed me this:
	"We already have a record for Heavy water and other stories, but we didn't know about the 2000 Vintage International edition. Thank you! You can click on the tabs below to tell Open Library more about this book."
		- This seems wrong, in two ways: 
			1. It should have found a match for the 2000 edition I just entered - but, wait - I suppose that's because SOLR isn't being updated on-the-fly yet... OK :) Golly gosh, we need those updates!
			2. It should (only) say "We already have a record for the 2000 Vintage International edition of Heavy Water by Martin Amis. If you'd like to add more information, please, feel free!" and the note should be highlighted in some way to make it stand out.