Manage potential matches when Adding Books

This is a mock for Step 4, described above, where we can't find an exact Work match.

A screen like this could be re-used if we find an Edition match too, where instead of a list of Works, it could show a list of Editions of a Work. (This could get a bit confusing though, in the cases where we have matches or very similar editions under a Work.)

Here's what Step 3 could look like.

And for Step 2, a new Edition for an existing Work

Implemented case#2 partially.

To test it go to any work and click on "Add another?". Enter publisher, published date and click add. It assumes that there is no edition (just for now) and creates a new one.

Excellent! Go, Anand!

Lance - can you please whip up a template for Anand for the "Match" stage:

http://launchpadlibrarian.net/38470234/add-book-work-match.png

Could be at /books/add/match or something.

I've set up a template here, but I've no idea what it will do at this point:
http://upstream.openlibrary.org/templates/books/check.tmpl

Implemented all cases except #3. It hits the solr now for finding the
matches.

Not yet ready for testing.

Good stuff. Also need the link from an author page to follow this pattern (where Author field is completed with the Author you've come from.)

E.g. http://upstream.openlibrary.org/authors/OL598810A/Germaine_Greer - see the "Add another?" link...

Implemented first 3 cases. Some more work required for case#4. Redirect to work page is yet not done. Needs more testing.

Done.

Please test it.

What should be comment for creating new work and edition?

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://...

On 04-Feb-10, at 10:20 AM, George wrote:

> 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

Fixed.

There could be other errors in the page. I made it display "Are you
sure that's the published date?" next to the input box. I wanted to
show "Are you sure that's the published date of the book?", but it was
too long fit in the available space. Any suggestions?

> 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

Hmm. There was a bug that was causing author to be ignored. Fixed now.

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

Sorry, fixed.

> 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.

Done.

> 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...

FWIW, I've removed the Add Book form from the search results page if you have 0 results. I think it's too much, particularly if you're searching for an author's name and not a book title. We can look at a smarter 0 results page later.

Added validation for author-autocomplete and removed "This form is incomplete..." message.

Can we mark this as done?

Added a new edition of "Star in My Crown" successfully. Yay!

There were a few little weirdnesses in the UI around waiting/selecting authors or languages, but they're very hard to describe! All worked eventually though.

I'll be doing more testing over the next few days, and so is Winnie.

When you validate on Publish Date and it's in the future, it doesn't make sense to show the same "Hang on, you missed 1 field" error at the top. There is a value in the field, so it's simply wrong to say you missed a field.

You need to move the "Are you sure that's the published date?" up into the top yellow area, and keep the highlight on the publish date field.

See http://upstream.openlibrary.org/works/OL2696398W/Skyscrapers

As I created the book entry, I transcribed the Publisher Name directly from the book. Since it wasn't an exact match for an existing 1996 edition, I was able to create a 2nd 1996 Black Dog edition.

The sooner we can add a Publisher search at that point, the better.

On 19-Feb-10, at 3:57 AM, George wrote:

> See http://upstream.openlibrary.org/works/OL2696398W/Skyscrapers
>
> As I created the book entry, I transcribed the Publisher Name directly
> from the book. Since it wasn't an exact match for an existing 1996
> edition, I was able to create a 2nd 1996 Black Dog edition.
>
> The sooner we can add a Publisher search at that point, the better.

I thought my super-smart fuzzy matcher can handle this. I'll see why
it failed.

Did you see why it failed?

Bump...

(I'm guessing this is not critical anymore, at least in your thinking? If not, you can change the setting... But, the fuzzy matcher is not really working as it stands.)

Just added 3 duplicate editions:

http://openlibrary.org/books/OL24300381M/In_Defense_of_Food
http://openlibrary.org/books/OL24300382M/In_Defense_of_Food
http://openlibrary.org/books/OL24300380M/In_Defense_of_Food

One has a precise ISBN match with this:
http://openlibrary.org/books/OL24225704M/In_Defense_of_Food

Add Book isn't working properly.

This new Work & Edition was created for a work & author we already have in the system:

http://openlibrary.org/works/OL15157292W/In_Defense_of_Food

Repeat: There problems with Add Book. It should be revisited/rewritten.

There is also an issue with Case #4 - if the potential matches we find still aren't the book the user is intending to add, we need a link (or submit button) that says: "None of these match the book I'm trying to add. _Create a new record_ for {Title} by {Author}.

Anand - we need that link for Case #4. Alexis and her team are trying to add books, and are getting stuck in that particular case.

Please attend to it as soon as possible. Like, today.

On 13-Oct-2010, at 10:36 PM, George wrote:

> Anand - we need that link for Case #4. Alexis and her team are trying to
> add books, and are getting stuck in that particular case.
>
> Please attend to it as soon as possible. Like, today.

I think I found the bug. deploying in a minute.

Hi Anand - we still need to cover the case that the user just needs to proceed anyway, to create a new entry, via a "None of these match my book. Create a new record" link.

On 14-Oct-2010, at 11:35 PM, George wrote:

> Hi Anand - we still need to cover the case that the user just needs to
> proceed anyway, to create a new entry, via a "None of these match my
> book. Create a new record" link.

Yes. I'll work on it tomorrow.

Fixed the bug in matching identifiers and added "none of these.." link.

The edition match still looks at all the fields (title, author, publisher, published_date and identifer). So the add-book engine may fail to handle variations in title or published date even though there is an exact identifier match.

I think we can look at improving that in a separate issue.

Can we mark this as done?