View Single Post
Old 03-10-2016, 02:02 PM   #4
jackie_w
Grand Sorcerer
jackie_w ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.jackie_w ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.jackie_w ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.jackie_w ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.jackie_w ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.jackie_w ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.jackie_w ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.jackie_w ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.jackie_w ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.jackie_w ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.jackie_w ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.
 
Posts: 6,252
Karma: 16544692
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: UK
Device: ClaraHD, Forma, Libra2, Clara2E, LibraCol, PBTouchHD3
Quote:
Originally Posted by chaley View Post
My suspicion, dealing with books, is that the dates around "today" are of more interest...
Yes, personally I would agree with that but other opinions would be helpful.
Quote:
Originally Posted by chaley View Post
  • Group by decade for 50 years in the past (future), rounded down (up) to the century.
  • Group my century to the nearest larger/smaller millenium.
  • Group what is left by millennium

Assuming today as the reference date, we would see:
  • 1/1/0101 to 31/12/999 ==> 0000-0999
  • 1/1/1000 to 31/12/1989 ==> group by century (1000-1099, 1100-1199, ..., 1800-1899)
  • 1/1/1900 to 31/12.2099 ==> group by decade (1900-1909, 1910-1919, ..., 2090-1099)
  • 1/1/2100 to 31/12/2199 ==> group by century (2100-2199, 2200-2299, ..., 2900-2999)
  • 1/1/3000 to whatever ==> group my millennium (3000-3999, 4000-4999, ...)
The leading zeros won't be displayed on the first range.
Did you mean
[*]1/1/1000 to 31/12/1899 ==> group by century (1000-1099, 1100-1199, ..., 1800-1899)
[*]1/1/1900 to 31/12.2099 ==> group by decade (1900-1909, 1910-1919, ..., 2090-2099)

I'm not sure I understand the concept of a 'Date published' value which is 'greater than current date', but apart from that it sounds like a reasonable start point for discussion. Personally I'd definitely like all books from 1900-onwards to be available 'by decade'. I'm OK with pre-1900 being 'by century' but those who read a lot of 19th-century Classics may feel more strongly about this. I also have to confess I've no idea what History buffs who read B.C. texts currently do with 'Date published'.

Quote:
Originally Posted by chaley View Post
And yes, I know that a millennium runs from 1001 to 2000 not 1000 to 1999, but the calculations are easier in the second case. It might also be visually easier to use.
I have a strong personal preference for 1800-1899, 1960-69 etc., even if that might make others consider me an uneducated total Philistine

... and finally, whatever I say now I can't promise I won't have changed my mind completely by the time the books in 3000 A.D. are published
jackie_w is offline   Reply With Quote