Request: Please can we have additional user fields to manage resources

I've submitted your suggestion with a link to this thread.

Dave Hooton said:

I would add that each field can be renamed and given a default value(s) from Logos' metadata fields.

Yes, re-nameable fields would be good. I would love to have one named "Systemic Bias" and code it with things like Calvinist, Wesleyan, Covenant Theology, etc. [:)]

No, let's not have Logos pre-load them. I fear that "ordinary users" would find this confusing. Maybe we could have the ability to copy from Logos meta-data fields to user fields.

Some of you certainly want to manage a lot of classifications![:S]    You provide some good ideas though. I would find it nice to have the package included as one separate fields filled in by Logos or by the installation process. When someone recommends a certain package, I don't know if I bought it years ago or not because I don't know what was in the package. Anyway I like the idea of the UserX fields that can be named by the user though I realize this can be accomplished using the current user tag field.

I am not sure having user defined fields would benefit me as much as having the ability to create a drop down list, or maybe another pane (similar to the highlighting pane and the custom palette) I could select from when I click "add tag". This would eliminate having to retype the same thing when tagging resources.

I have a number of resources that have multiple tags and if I search for a specific list of tagged resources (e.g. mytag:greek) it works fine, even if I have other tags associated with the same resources.

I am not opposed to the suggestions above and may discover ways to use that feature if it was available.

Jim Towler said:

Bob Pritchett said:

Do you really need separate fields?

Hi Bob,

Yes please - I really do want seperate fields.

Its on account of a few reasons:

1. Display and Sorting in the Library Panel. This is one that really fails with overloading "MyTags".
2. Simple collection rules.
3. Less typing to add the data. I would rather somehow select User4 or whatever, and type something that need to add a label as part of the data. Also, the data gets longer.
4. I saw somewhere that we are discouraged from changing the "Short Title", so in some cases I have an alternative in the MyTags field

Correctly documented as user-fields, it should be easy to discourage people that have no idea what its for and no idea why they need it, to leave them alone. (Actually - I'm not sure that works with software )

I understand the desire to keep it simple and clean and less intimidating. Thats why I think a set list such as User0...User9 might be a lot easier to code, document and support than unlimited and user-named ones.

My concern is that the current single field is already maxed out and getting hard to use, to contain everything I want to mark in my resources. I have 1300 and growing, so I really want to be able to manage them well, and use them as I wish.

More fields would absolutely be appreciated. I was thinking the same thing but never thought to ask. [Y][Y]
Hopefully we will see them in the near future. [:D]

Thanks for seriously considering this request Bob!

Bob Pritchett said:

Why can't you just assign multiple tags? You can have as many tags as you like, and there doesn't seem to be overlap on your requirements, so a book can carry "Purchased_2010_05_01; skimmed; MarchMadness; my_type" etc.

Bob, maybe an obvious item, but I'll ask it anyways. Does L4 treat each individual entry in MyTags as separate entries during a search using MyTags? Per your example is the semi-colon the required separator (I ask as I haven't started using MyTags to what appears their full capability)? Is the L4 search using MyTags have sufficient intelligence not to return duplicates if I am doing a search for multiple parameters that some resources might include both?

If each entry is considered separate from the others and the search aspect will eliminate dups, then I see no reason to add a slew of additional user-defined fields that would increase the database size, that - I would hazard to guess - only a small portion of users would benefit from that could be handled with the available capabilities with some minor re-thinking on the end-users part.

I'm not in favour of custom fields, and in my view tags do work. But one thing that this does raise is that Logos could store more and better user data about our books:

• A new field for 'read/unreading/reading' (with a date for start/finish) could be very useful, and link in the the Reading Plan.
• Storing and exposing the date a resource was purchased ought to be easy and has been requested several times.
• Likewise exposing the field which stores the actual unlock for that resource would allow users to create collections around purchases, which has also been requested several times.

I've considered going through my Library and slowly tagging my books with their Library of Congress call numbers. This would allow me to look at my library in a topical way and it's the way I organize my print library.

However, if I were to do this then when I sort by the Mytag field the LoC numbers would be intermingled with all of the other tags I use. Because of the mess this would cause I am choosing not to tag my library in this fashion. Of course I would prefer that Logos do all this tagging for me, but I don't expect it [:)].

While I can see the value in the type of system that Jim is suggesting I would rather see programing effort go toward other priorities. I will keep my tagging my library in a minimalistic way so I don't get a cluttered mess when I sort by Mytag in the Library view.

Kevin Becker said:

I've considered going through my Library and slowly tagging my books with their Library of Congress call numbers.

Oh my, please don't allow this. I would be constitutionally unable to allow any classification field (LoC or Dewey) blank. I'd spend the rest of my life classifying! [:P]

Seriously though, this raises an important point. Many of the resources in Logos have MARC data. This was exposed in L3, but hidden in L4. I'd like to see MARC data in the library view. There are some useful fields there.

MJ. Smith said:

we do need a dropdown menu of the values we have used in the fields so that we tag consistently

YES!  This would be a great addition.

MJ. Smith said:

we do need a dropdown menu of the values we have used in the fields so that we tag consistently

Yes - although autocomplete would make the UI cleaner.

Jim Towler said:

This is great if someone is using a small set of different values to use for searching, but its useless and fast gets out of control if you store memo text there. e.g. all kinds of different notes, comments, prices, dates, author names or whatever into MyTags just does not work, as the auto-collections get messy fast.

Blessings