I've created this subject: https://www.bookogs.com/credit/421813-acts

I'm trying to add this subject to another book, and it will allow me to create a new "Acts", but it won't allow me to use the existing subject. Why is this? What is the workaround?

It seems to occur with short titles. I experienced the same with The Star by H. G. Wells. I created a dialogue earlier today with the staff explaining the problem, but have yet to receive a response.

It turns out that "creating a new Acts" merely points the new submission to the existing Acts. Still, this is annoying and confusing.

The reply I received from the staff said that they are aware of the problem are currently tweaking the search engine.

I suppose we will just have to be patient in the interim.

The reply I received from the staff said that they are aware of the problem and are currently tweaking the search engine.

I suppose we will just have to be patient in the interim.

I had same problem today with the band Felt on the new submission for, its ok on the old form. As mentioned, maybe the brevity of the name.

I wonder how long the name needs to be... I'm having the same problem with Orbit. It doesn't show up on the list.

Whats irritating is the more letters you type in of the credit the further down the drop down the correct credit goes!

I can sort of get my head around the fact the database has difficulties searching for short names, but when the database can't locate something like Erections, Ejaculations, Exhibitions, and General Tales of Ordinary Madness as a Works credit https://www.bookogs.com/work/403842-erections-ejaculations-exhibitions-and-general-tales-of-ordinary-madness it does make me wonder.

There are six copies of this book in the database, all of them foreign editions that require name variations. To add the Works credit required creating a "new" Works title each time, saving the edit and then making an additional edit to add the Works ANV. It certainly isn't user friendly!

Whats irritating is the more letters you type in of the credit the further down the drop down the correct credit goes!

That is the same on Discogs, and in all the time I have worked with databases (nearly 40+ years) I have never encountered this situation prior to my joining up to Discogs in 2014. I can't understand why the search function behaves in this manner as it seems to defy logic. Maybe it's time for another holiday!

This should be improved now. Let us know if you still have problems with it.

For the curious the problems were being caused by "fuzzy matching" which would move exact matches out of the displayed results in favour of fuzzier ones.

An example of fuzzy illogic.

Login or Register to post a reply to this topic.