A couple of months ago, one of the windows was broken on my in-law’s van while it was parked in our driveway overnight. We have a dusk-to-dawn light over the garage, but that didn’t deter the burglar. I have felt guilty and frustrated by this, and have been thinking about installing security cameras around the house.Continue reading
When I first attended PAX in 2009, I had already been a fan of the comic for around six years. The business model that Mike and Jerry had of creating content and giving it away for free was inspiring to me, I loved their response to Jack Thompson, I was a staunch supporter of their charity, and I just generally wanted to meet them. I had an absolutely amazing time, and I knew I wanted to go back.
I didn’t grow up Christian, but for those who did, the experience of leaving home and eventually returning to visit, including a Sunday morning spent in your home church, is probably familiar. For most everyone I know, they left home to go to college, so in theory they became more educated, and along the way they generally became less conservative, began to enjoy a different style of worship, and generally identified less and less with their home church. Returning brings a mix of emotions, from peace and security that carried over to childhood, to trepidation and anxiety about being accepted after having changed so much, and maybe some frustration or bitterness that the home church hasn’t changed. It’s a weird combination of joy and fear and nostalgia.
That’s what I felt last night listening to the Mixtapes last night at Patton Alley. That music was my safe space when I was in junior high and high school, and the alternative and punk rock of the mid-to-late 90s and early 2000s gave me permission to stop caring what other people thought, to become my own person, and choose the type of life I wanted to live. Listening to a lot of my old favourite songs last night, none of which I had heard performed live before (and the band was awesome and did a fantastic job), was my version of visiting the home church. The nostalgia brought a mix of peace and joy mixed with sadness and loss.
As we’re moving into the spring months, lawn care becomes more of a priority. Mowing and trimming need to happen before the grass gets too tall to mow, and we’re also watering our gardens and trees regularly (when it’s not raining, as it has been the last week). With all this additional attention on the yard, we notice other things more often as well. One of these is all the litter that blows in from our neighbour’s lawn.
I don’t bother every week, but this never-ending cycle of picking up their trash has frustrated me since they moved in almost a year ago. At first, we wrote it off to the post-move-in throw-away, which happens after any big move as people dispose of their cardboard boxes and things they brought but realized they didn’t need. Over the months, it became apparent that our neighbours were just trashy. We’ve learned that they are metal scrappers, who take apart things like hot water heaters and washers/dryers to pull out the recyclable metal and sell it; that’s all fine and well, but why does so much paper and styrofoam have to be strewn about?
It’s about 30 minutes at a whack to clean everything up. I’ve reported them once to the Department of Health because their backyard had gotten so piled up with stuff that we were afraid of storms tossing their junk into our house and causing damage, in addition to the even more likely matter of snakes and rats becoming more abundant. After that, they got rid of a lot of the junk, and the backyard is about four times better now. Nevertheless, it’s not great.
I’ve gotten all of the litter out of our yard for now, so there’s that. Unfortunately, I’ll have to do it again before too long, and keep doing it until they move out. I could be more aggressive and confront them about it, but I’m not sure how to introduce that conversation. And more to the point, it’s not like they’re not aware that their yard is full of trash that gets blown around the neighbourhood. They know, it just doesn’t bother them.
I get a wonderful feeling of satisfaction from having the clothes washer, dryer, and dishwasher all going at the same time. It’s especially nice that once I have all those going, I don’t really have to do anything, at least for an hour or so.
Our house is like a factory, producing cleanness ^_^ Also, laziness, because after a special waffle breakfast I made for April, it’s time to sit and lounge and digest.
Now we just need a Roomba…
As I have mentioned, I’ve been using LibraryThing for a while and it is certainly my favourite, but today I’ll try to take a more objective look at the service by applying the same rubrick I’ve used in the previous two reviews.
LibraryThing is the only one of the three where I have added an extensive list of books by searching for them one by one. I did a few test books on Shelfari and Goodreads to get a feel for how they would work and they all felt fairly similar. The difference is that LibraryThing, unlike the other two, actually pulls from something other than Amazon.com.
In addition to searching Amazon.com, LibraryThing can also query the Library of Congress and its extensive collection. Furthermore, LibraryThing has been adopted by a number of libraries (the full list is well over 600 library catalogs entered, just not every library is using LibraryThing as their main system), and the more books added to LibraryThing, the greater the potential that your book will have already been put into the system. This means that adding books is faster because there is less manual entry.
Goodreads and Shelfari also query books entered by users, but their user base (and subsequent catalogs) are much smaller. On the downside, Ryan tells me that if your book isn’t found when using LibraryThing, you have to manually select libraries to search from, and that can be a huge pain. I’ve been talking with some people in the LibraryThing community about this, but haven’t come to any good conclusions on how to resolve the issue yet.
The site speed has improved recently with some database server and memory server additions, and I’ve been greatly impressed. Previously, I would have ranked it lower on speed, but the new servers have made a noticeable difference. Adding books now is much faster than before, and the site is very responsive.
In regards to editing books, LibraryThing beats the other two hands down, but I’ll talk more about that in regards to Organization. Editing books is an order of magnitude better and faster with LibraryThing.
LibraryThing is the only online management system of the three that has an actual mobile version of their service. To be honest, I hadn’t used it in a while on account of not buying many books recently, but it’s just as fast as before.
While mobile stylesheets tend to be very barebones and unattractive, they do make things significantly faster on smartphones and the like, so accessing my library and performing searches was significantly faster than Goodreads. Of course, none of this was even possible on Shelfari.
I was able to get in and search for a book in my library in mere seconds. I could even get to my listing of the book and see what tags I had assigned it, its ISBN, publication date, and Dewey Decimal Number (very handy if you’re trying to find a book in an older brick-and-mortar library).
LibraryThing shines when it comes to organization because it is simply so much more powerful than the other two services. The aspect I’ll mention here, to which I alluded earlier, is in editing books.
Though you can’t see my mouse cursor in the above screenshot, I was hovered over the tags panel in a table displaying my books. Double click on any of the fields to make them editable, then change whatever you like and hit a save button. You’re done; all fields displayed are editable, it’s fast, and it’s intuitive. It’s simply the easiest way to quickly modify basic information about a book.
For extensive or more advanced information, you can still click on a book and edit just about all of the information about it, which I prefer. Shelfari only lets you put in a few notes, and Goodreads requires that you be approved as a librarian before editing data. This is likely because all of their books are stored in a single place centrally, while LibraryThing has a powerful system that can handle combinations.
One of my criticisms with Shelfari and Goodreads was the inability to modify multiple books at once. If your library is more than a dozen or so books, I feel like this feature is absolutely crucial, and its oversight in Shelfari and Goodreads somewhat surprised me.
Power Editing in LibraryThing allows you to apply changes to multiple books at once, and while not every field can be modified this way, the most important ones can. If you’ve got a large library to organize, I can’t imagine the frustration and tediousness you would experience without having a feature like this.
You can set five styles in which to view your books, though I usually just set one and don’t change it. More important to me is the ability to organize my books how I like and how I have them on my bookshelves.
The process goes like this:
- Search my tags for fantasy -young, which returns results for all books tagged fantasy (fiction) but that are not tagged young (adult).
- Click on the date column so the oldest books are displayed first. This column represents publication date, not the date the book was added to the library.
- Click on the author column to organize them by last name.
I am now presented with all of my fantasy fiction novels, excluding those that are in our young adult section, organized by author (alphabetically by last name) and secondarily by publication date. This is how we have them on our shelves, which makes it easier for me to find a book.
You simply don’t have the same level of tagging, customization, or ability to view your books in the other systems. In LibraryThing, I tell it how I want to see my library. Shelfari and Goodreads try to dictate to me how it should look.
So many reasons to love, but not for everyone
There are a lot of other features in LibraryThing that I couldn’t imagine doing without now. A librarian friend of mine observed that its API is open and very good, which allows people to do a lot with the site including using it in actual libraries. The community around the site is strong and extensive, and I’m a member of the Early Reviewers group, which allows me to enter into a lottery every month to receive a free book either before its publication or soon after (for which I would write a review).
I’ll admit that LibraryThing is written by certain people and for certain people. I can’t put a label on those groups though, as they’re fairly ambiguous. A diverse group of people use the service, so it’s not just written to coders or librarians (or some mix of the two), but it feels a lot like other developer-centric software I’ve used where it was written with the coders rather than the users in mind.
However, I don’t find it difficult, and neither does my wife. And I know a lot of people who use it with abounding joy. It’s simply the best tool for the job.
Get What You Pay For
LibraryThing is not exactly free, unlike Shelfari and Goodreads. You can add up to 200 books for free, so if your library is small, there’s no reason not to use LibraryThing. For more than 200 books, there is a $10 a year or $25 lifetime fee. I gladly put $25 down after adding our first hundred books because LibraryThing is just that great.
It’s the cost of taking a date to a movie to use a great library for life (at least the life of the site, which looks to be very stable and healthy). And I also believe in investing in good services, so I had no qualms paying for LibraryThing.
Final Grade: A
- Needs to be relatively fast. | B
- Speed/ease of adding books. | B
- General site speed. | B
- Speed/ease of editing books. | A
- Must be online, but furthermore must be mobile accessible so I can access my library from the bookstore to see if I already own something. | A
- Should be displayable by how I organize my books on the shelf (Genre -> Author alphabetically by last name -> Publication date) so that I can better find things in my physical library. | A
I was little torn over what grade to give LibraryThing. I’m hesitant to give it an A because it simply isn’t perfect, but then again, nothing ever will be. But it’s also head and shoulders above anything else, particularly in regards to tagging, quickly editing, and organizing your books.
As I began writing my justification for an A-/B+ grade, I realized how true I felt the previous sentence to be. If Goodreads is a B, then LibraryThing is clearly an A in my book. The fact that it costs money might disqualify LibraryThing from your own list of software to consider, in which case I definitely recommend Goodreads. But if organizing, expanding, and maintaining your library is your top concern, money not being as much of an issue, I would most certainly recommend LibraryThing.
As before, I imported my library from LibraryThing to give me some data to work with. Though I’d heard about Goodreads before, I hadn’t messed with it any, and now that I’ve done so, I’d like to see what happens when I use the rubrick I established for these reviews.
Goodreads is pretty quick, both with adding and finding books. As with Shelfari, the only options you have when searching are those books already entered into Goodreads and Amazon.com, but the interface feels more clean and I had no problem finding my test books.
Unfortunately, import did not go so well. What Shelfari handled in a matter of seconds, Goodreads took over 35 minutes to import. I don’t know what took so long, and after it finished, it had left thirty-one books out. Admittedly, this is less than Shelfari left out, but Shelfari also told me which books it had dropped. Goodreads just failed without telling me which books it hadn’t been able to record.
As for editing books, it’s a bit slower than Shelfari in that I have to click a link rather than hover over the book, but I’m OK with that. What I’m not OK with is the way Goodreads handles tagging.
Rather than tags, Goodreads uses “shelves,” which are pretty much the same thing… except you can’t just type them into a list. You have to use a drop down menu, and then either add new shelves or click a check box to apply shelves/tags.
On LibraryThing, I have probably around 500 unique tags (a total of 2,663 tags used on books, but that’s with a lot of duplicates). Imagine scrolling through that in a drop down menu. I also often like to apply the same tags to books in a series, so not being able to copy and paste a line of tags/text is frustrating.
Like Shelfari, there’s no mass editing of books; I can’t apply similar changes to multiple books.
Again, Goodreads is obviously online or else it would not be part of these reviews, but how does it stack up in the mobile arena?
While it doesn’t have a dedicated mobile version, their website isn’t near as bloated or poorly designed as Shelfari (measuring in at about 1/4 the size per page). It runs decently on Windows Mobile in Internet Explorer, to the extent that it is usable. It’s 300+ kb size is a bit much for non-3G phones, and it’s not optimized for mobile browsers, but it actually works pretty decently.
I could log in, access my library, and search for books, which was pretty exciting to see.
As I mentioned earlier, tagging/shelving is a failure to me on Goodreads. However, once you have shelved books, you can view just that shelf and then order them by author’s last name, the title, or the publication date, so that’s decent. You just have to resign yourself to having very few tags/shelves or else the system will become unmanageable.
I can’t imagine using Goodreads to organize a sizable library (beyond a few hundred books). But if you’re the type to only have a few tags/shelves, it’ll work just fine.
It’s worth mentioning that Goodreads is just plain pretty. It’s pleasant to browse around, though I don’t feel like there’s much to browse. It’s well-designed, and I enjoyed using it for testing. Goodreads is certainly easy on the eyes.
Final Grade: B
- Needs to be relatively fast. | B
- Speed/ease of adding books. | B
- General site speed. | B
- Speed/ease of editing books. | C
- Must be online, but furthermore must be mobile accessible so I can access my library from the bookstore to see if I already own something. | B
- Should be displayable by how I organize my books on the shelf (Genre -> Author alphabetically by last name -> Publication date) so that I can better find things in my physical library. | C+
On speed/ease of editing books, not being able to edit multiple books at one time will never earn anything above a C. When handling anything beyond a dozen books, I feel this is crucial.
I gave the organization a C+ because it would allow me to see general shelf location decently, but the way it handles tagging isn’t scalable and therefore doesn’t suit me well.
Goodreads is Good
In general, Goodreads is pretty decent, and if you’re looking for a free service, I imagine it’s the best you can do. That sounds somewhat snide, but I really mean it when I say that Goodreads is good. I was pleasantly surprised by this service, and would recommend it to people who are looking for a free and easy way to organize their home library, provided they didn’t have more than a few hundred books (say, no more than 300 probably).
On Monday, I’ll talk about my personal favourite, LibraryThing, which does have a fee involved (for anything beyond 200 books), but which I feel is well worth it.