ISFDB:Proposed Interface Changes/Archive

This is an archive of Proposed Interface Changes. Sections are moved here once the change has been implemented or rejected.

Series parent display

Moved from community portal -DES ^Talk 05:55, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Feature requests 90004 and 90041 on ISFDB, now Feature Request 2800716 on Sourceforge (thanks to DES).

Is this the sort of thing desired? You can click on the link after "Child of" to move up a level, and such won't display if you're at the top level. You can also click on sub-series to move down a level, but it will still show the series level you came from as a "Child of" link. I know "Star Trek" isn't exactly a priority for most of you, but neither is "Star Wars", "Doctor Who", "Buffy the Vampire Slayer" or other such hierarchical nightmares. (No, I'm not inviting comments on sub-series ordering or such, just on links to parent series for now. Other editing nightmares will have to wait.) BLongley 02:54, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Looks like a good idea. The only way to know is to click "Series Data" and see if it shows a parent.Kraang 03:22, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

I like the feature, not sure on the wording or placement. Could we call it "A Sub-Series of ..." and put an empty line between it and the series actually shown. This will help separate that it is 'extra' information, and not part of the series data selected for display. Kevin 03:24, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

The wording is easily changed if people want. "A Sub-Series of" might imply that there are other sub-series though, and that's not always certain. BLongley 03:49, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

I did look at various placement options and found that separating the position of the parent made it look unrelated, whereas a parent series seems just as valid a relationship as a child series, so I put it back to where it is in that example. Highlighting the level you're actually looking at in some other way might be another option though. BLongley 03:49, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

"Sub-series" is probably better than "child", but otherwise it would be a good addition. We will also need to enhance that screen by adding Variant Titles, but that's a different and probably more complex issue. Ahasuerus 04:11, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm fine with dropping the A. I'm even fine with simply labeling it Parent Series:. The phrase 'Child of' just strikes me as odd (even thought it's technically correct) Kevin 04:21, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

"Sub-series" it is then. BLongley 12:09, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Variant titles also added to the display. BLongley 15:42, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

End of discussion moved from community portal -DES ^Talk 05:55, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Cover art supplied by ...

Moved from community portal -DES ^Talk 02:33, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Initial Discussion

I have successfully gotten a local server up and am working on a feature that I think is within my grasp. New and improved 'Cover art supplied by ...' links for our many cover art files hosted by other organizations.

Now for discussion... I believe everyone is ok with adding links for the people who have voluntarily let us use their images and bandwidth per ISFDB:Image_linking_permissions. These should be links to a top level directory for each website. Some questions...

• Should we implement a link (as shown in the example) to Amazon?
  • Should we monetize the link with the ISFDB affiliate code?
• Should we put in code for Ace Image Library (They haven't said yes, but I don't think we've asked them and I know there are lots of offending records in the database).
• Should we put in a link to ourselves for 'Cover Art Hosted by ISFDB' with a link to the (Mainpage? Wiki Main Page? The Image again? The Image's Wiki Page (with rights stuff on it)).
• Should we put in code to capture 'other' hosted images to attempt to credit other sites through automagic code that extracts the top level URL for the other host site?

Thanks for all your input, Kevin 00:01, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

My views:

• A link seems fine to me, and I have no objection to adding an affiliate code for those sources that support such.
• I urge that we ASK the Ace image library. If they don't say yes in a reasonable time, we should find the offending pages, and down load the images and upload them to the wiki, and remove the links.
• There is already a Feature Request in the system for linking to the image description page rather than the raw image for locally hosted images. Perhaps this could be implemented at the same time. If not, a link to the image description wiki page for "image hosted by the ISFDB" would be a VERY good idea, IMO.
• It is not the case for all sites that the top level URL is related to the given URL. particularly if a hosting service is employed without a custom domain, as may be the case for smaller/older fan sites. Since hovering shows the URL, I don't think trying top construct a link is a good idea.
• Being able to search for image URLs from domains not on the white list (to remove them, replacing with a downloaded copy) would be very handy.

Is that workable? -DES ^Talk 00:20, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Ooh, we're crosstalking tonight! Here's my comments:

• I wouldn't add more Amazon links, we have those in the Navbar anyway. I actually think (given that they're unreliable links) that an Amazon Image should link to a warning that we'd prefer a local copy.
• A credit for Ace Image library would be good, but it might be time to check whether they're upset with us. A link might cause them even more bandwidth problems.
• For local images, DES has already recorded Feature Request 90159 here. This might be a way to implement it?
• Feature 90139 might also apply.
• The long term goal IMO would be to have a table of image sites, with some sort of indicators on whether we can use the image at all, how to credit the images, how to link to the image or the site, and the software should use that to ban submissions, or flag up warnings to mods, or credit images appropriately. BLongley 00:32, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Responses to Bill's comments:

• I agree with Bill on the long term goal. (IMO an image URL should be banned only if it is from a site known to refuse permission, i.e at the moment only Wikipedia. An unknown site should IMO be flagged but not banned, ideally.)
• I do think that the text "Image supplied by Amazon" (or the like) would be good whether it is a link or not. As I understand it, Kevin's proposal that such text would link to http://www.amazon.com not to the amazon page for the specifc pub, am i correct? This seems to me at worst harmless.

Hope that helps. Other people's views? -DES ^Talk 00:47, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

An unknown site might be best dealt with by not using the image directly but by providing a link to the image, or the page the image is on, so we don't get accused of bandwidth theft. For most-abused sites, this might be quicker to implement in software (and easier on our disk space) than downloading and reuploading all their images, but software deployments here have unknown timescales so far. BLongley 01:16, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

I'd still prefer that Amazon links under the image (especially for ZZZZZZZZ images that may be replaced at any time by something totally different) do not link to Amazon but to a warning page. And if it's decided they MUST link to Amazon, I think they should go to the appropriate Amazon rather than assume that the US site is the correct one. This is not determinable from the URL, as far as I can see - Marc Kupper has pointed out that images seem to be centrally stored, but they're not necessarily used on all Amazon sites. So for instance, the hundreds of images I've uploaded to Amazon.co.uk will usually not be visible on Amazon.com. The only quick fix if such is really desired would be to use the currency symbol in our price field, and unfortunately for Amazon.de that's not consistent as to whether it's leading or trailing. BLongley 01:16, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

(after edit conflict)I see your point about the different amazon sites, and i fully agree about the ZZZZZZZZ images. +

On a numnber of occasions a new editor has supplied an image link to an author site, and self-identified as the author and granted linking permission. I wouldn't want to have to have a code change to approve such images. If there was an interface where ethe mods could easily add sites to the whitelist table, that would be different. But that is obviously a larger step. -DES ^Talk 01:37, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

• The proposed link to amazon would just be to the top level 'Amazon.com'. I might be able to have it check the price and if it begins with the lb symbol, throw the link to 'Amazon.co.uk', But I have zero desire to duplicate the full links that already appear on the left hand side of the page to the specific pubs. Kevin 01:30, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

• Asking the Ace image library folks sounds like an obvious idea. I am not sure why we haven't done it yet or, if we have, why they haven't responded.
• Linking to the main Amazon.com page seems harmless. Even if we were to link to the specific book with the affiliate tag, it would still be OK since we are already using this tag when linking from the navbar. However, a local copy might be eventually better for the reasons that Bill outlined -- also see below.
• Linking to the related ISFDB Wiki pages for local images seems to be a no-brainer.
• Since Amazon.com (and some other) images are often unstable, at one point I wrote a script which downloaded all images that we link to and put them in a directory tree on my local server. I am not sure what we should do with this data (2.2Gb zipped), but it gives us more options, e.g. we could use it to replace Amazon images with local copies when Amazon's stuff becomes unavailable. Unfortunately, image uploads take time and at the moment I have my hands full with software testing, deployment, etc. Still, it's nice to have a backup. Ahasuerus 01:33, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Of course, your backup will include a load of duff images. Even if it was for a verified pub when you took the backup, Amazon may have changed the image since the verification. I've caught one editor adding Amazon images as if they must be right because the Amazon link worked, and it was only when he tried to update one of mine to a cover I'd never seen that I stopped him. Whatever is in your backup from Amazon should NOT be uploaded as a replacement to anything verified, and quite probably not for anything that's still commonly reprinted. It should be a good source for our more obscure titles though. BLongley 01:49, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

I am sure many of the images that we link to (which are, by extension, stored in my backup) are bad, so I wouldn't want to upload them automatically. However, the image backup repository could be a good place to check if we find that a previously docile image has gone AWOL and we have no other image handy. Ahasuerus 02:47, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

The owner of 'Ace Image Library' is away from the office for a few weeks. I will ask again once he is back answering email. Kevin 03:34, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

He's been "away from the office for a few weeks" for the last two or three years, hasn't he? Maybe more. BLongley 03:53, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually this page on his website was updated Feb of this year, and even mentions and links to the ISFDB. Kevin 04:00, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh good, he is home occasionally! I see he could do with some help on the Doc Savage doubles, he's only found one. BLongley 12:46, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Permission Received - Ace Image Library info updated on linking permissions template. Kevin 03:23, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Round 2 - ISFDB Hosted Images

Okay. It seems like everyone is onboard for the basics. There may be consensus for amazon links, but Bill would prefer I not be .com centric. I will see if I can make something work to be less US based. There also appears to be consensus that this is a possible place and time to implement links to wiki pages for the ISFDB Hosted images (and I prefer this solution... I like clicking the artwork to see just the artwork). Lastly, the consensus appears to be 'no' for Ace Library credits (prior to permission), and 'other' assorted credits at this time. Please chime in if this recap doesn't fit with what you are thinking, etc. Kevin 04:08, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

I have managed to learn enough python tonight to generate an auto link to the Image Page (not the Image) for all locally hosted cover art images.

As you can see, I initially went with some different language... do we really want to say 'Cover art supplied by the ISFDB'? Seems pretentious. Regardless, I am VERY open to language suggestions for this link from the publication page to the locally hosted image page in the wiki. Thanks Kevin 06:37, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

The wording looks fine. Ahasuerus 04:15, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Looks fine to me too. BLongley 17:19, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I concur. The ISFDB hosts images, it doesn't supply them, as we normally record a source for all iamges, either a scan from a specified book, or another web site. -DES ^Talk 17:29, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Round 3 - Amazon EU Hosted Images

Images hosted by the EU Amazon server will now show a link to Amazon.co.uk - How does this look? Kevin 04:09, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Probably the best we can do given the vagrant nature of Amazon images. Ahasuerus 04:16, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

How are you determining that it's on an EU server? BLongley 17:21, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

A percentage of the Amazon image links are hosted on a server name EU-images or something similar. There is an example in my sample test links on the development page. Kevin 02:18, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

OK, I wondered if you had solved the "g-ecx.images-amazon.com/something" (US) versus "g-ecx.images-amazon.com/something" (UK) thing yet. I guess that's going to be impossible. I'd still make it a warning for ZZZZZZZ images though, whichever site it's on, and not link to either ("any" really as there's Amazon.de too). BLongley 19:52, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Bill your last comment about still preferring no link due to the different Amazon's involved got lost in the shuffle. If you still feel strongly about this I'll happily resubmit a change that removes the amazon linking code, or just displays text "Image supplied by Amazon". Let me know. Kevin 03:31, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, Amazon already get links from the sidebar, so I wouldn't add more. "Image supplied by Amazon" would be OK by me, although it's probably actually a customer image if it's good. But for the ZZZZZZZ images, I think a warning "Unstable Image from Amazon, may not reflect this edition" would be better. They can and do change, and are often wrong in the first place. BLongley 11:37, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Round 4 - Code for Image Credits in the CVS

Download and test as you like. Kevin 02:19, 9 June 2009 (UTC) End discussion moved from community portal -DES ^Talk 02:33, 14 June 2009 (UTC)