weights in kg interpreted as pounds by statistics page

For my books collection the statistics page gives:
total 1387 pounds
mean 0.29 pounds
median 0.2 pounds
maximum 4.87 pounds
minimum 0.03 pounds
speculated total 1387 pounds

By sorting my books by weight it is clear the maximum is 4.871kg, the median is 0.199 kg and the minimum 0.03 kg. It is also clear that the total is far too low.

Also the histogram shows only 6 books over 1kg when I have 145.

Note I have single entries for multi-volume works where the total of the weights given for the individual volumes exceed 6.0 kg but these do not sort by total weight. e.g. by OED two volumes are both 3.8+kg but the work sorts only third in my collection.

I've noticed this too. The weight graph is flawed when the unit is kg.
Wish this will be fixed - the pounds (and inches) as measure unit are almost meaningless for me.

No change in over a year! all the weight stats on the statistics page are assuming my entries are in pounds when they are in Kg (and say so). Note that data for my books is best viewed for the collection books only.

Hmm. This means my library is about a tenth of an elephant, not a twentieth.

I noticed that on the librarything.de site on the *book pages*, the dimensions are now shown in inches and pounds as well (not "Zoll" and "Pfund", but I fear that some eager young translator will fix that soon ;-)).
Is there any plan of returning the "rest of the world" sites (except LT.com) to metric measurements? I seem to remember we had them before, but cannot be sure because I haven't been around much in the last year or so.

And for LT.com too please - as an option that sticks, not one that has to be reselected again and again. Even many people who prefer the English language don't actually use this antiquated measuring system.

p.s.: But for now, I would already be pleased if it simply interpreted the info we entered correctly.

Yes. Let us have no Mars Climate Orbiter-type mishaps in our libraries due to strange countries with weird political and measurement systems like Liberia, Myanmar and... what's that other one?

Giving to Chris C.

Bump

Reopening. The "needs discussion" was preventing CC from noticing it, I think.

bump

Annual bump

>12 ringman: The annual bump has been heard! This is on my list for next week.

I worked on this and think I've fixed it - just waiting to get another pair of eyes on it before i push. So hopefully will get out Monday.

>12 ringman: I've just pushed the fix for this - let me know if anything does not look correct.

The fix applies to height, length, thickness and weight - these were not being converted before stats were computed.

Thanks for fixing the weight issue, the graph and numbers seem to be correct now. :)

But it looks like something went wrong with the height and thickness graphs.
My statistic tells me my books are between 4 and 12 cm (2 to 4.5 inch) high, which is not possible. They are usually about 18-22 cm high.
Similar issue with thickness. The numbers displayed are way too low.

Is it possible, that there is still something wrong with the weight statistic? Please correct me if I'm wrong (my math "skills" are atrocious at best), but while the badger statistic seems about right, the elephant and blue whale numbers seem to be still wrong.

Example: Total (pounds): 467, Total (kg): 212.3, Adult badgers: 24.18, Elephants: 0.051, Blue whales: 0.00196

212,3kg/0,00196 whale = 108.316 kg per whale
google says 140.000 kg per whale

212,3kg/0,051 pachyderm = 4.163 kg per elephant
wikipedia says between 4.000 and 7.000 per unladen African elephant

seems not too far off, perhaps their reference numbers are different?

Oh, well. Looks like I was wrong. I really shouldn't try to do math after a stressful day. ;)

>16 Exlibris_88: So do we think height and thickness are incorrect? Were they incorrect before this fix, do we know (I would have expected them to be).

I couldn't possibly tell. My dimensions are not accurate across all my entries, so can't tell if the total is anywhere close.

Yes, they definitely are incorrect.
I didn't notice wrong h/l/t numbers before, so I guess they might have been correct, but, as has already been established in my last comment on this post, math isn't my strong suit. ;)

The actual height of the books that are included in my statistic ranges from 13.5 to 31.19 cm. But this is what the statistic currently displays: http://i103.photobucket.com/albums/m124/exlibris88/height_zpsxvblpznw.jpg~origin...
The same goes for thickness (and I guess length, too). Actual thickness: 0.3 to 6.4 cm. Thickness in statistic: http://i103.photobucket.com/albums/m124/exlibris88/thickness_zps4kua6pmf.jpg~ori...

Well that's odd. Here's what I see when I look at your stats:

I usually display only certain collections when viewing my statistics page (yes, the actual height/thickness I mentioned before are also only from those collections) and you see the statistic for all my collections.

But, huh, that's indeed weird. When I display all my collections I still have different numbers than you and BOTH of them are incorrect.
I have, for example, actually 9 books in my collections that are thicker than 6 cm, but this is what I see: http://i103.photobucket.com/albums/m124/exlibris88/thickness_loggedout_zpsgxabck...

A couple of updates:

1. i ran script to correct calculated book weights (those which are used only for sorting and the stats page) to change them from kg into pounds (so that all calculated book weights are in pounds for comparison/sorting).

2. I took out the logic I had put in back in >15 ccatalfo: so that the non-weight stats are back to what they were, which it looks *should* be correct.

Let me know what you think - I hope that solves both weight and non-weight at once.

>25 ccatalfo: I'm not sure why you reverted the conversions - 1in and 1cm aren't the same!

H/w/l stats look good to me now.
The cm numbers are correct in the "Distribution" stat and the inch numbers appear to be so, too.

>26 rodneyvc: The conversions were necessary before the data was updated to be correct. So fixing the underlying data obviated the need for the conversions (in fact they would have messed up the stats).

Er, I might have been rash when stating the stats look correct now.
There's still something not quite right with the graphs. While the general range of the numbers displayed on the graphs seems correct, the individual numbers are not.

Example:
My thickest books: http://i103.photobucket.com/albums/m124/exlibris88/lt_zpsmxxkmpdi.jpg~original
What the graph shows me: http://i103.photobucket.com/albums/m124/exlibris88/thickness_zpsyww59pys.jpg~ori...
Height and weight have the same problem.

>29 Exlibris_88: Thanks - I'll take another look then. The change as completed in >28 ccatalfo: should only affected weight btw.

Sorry it's still not right.
The total weight was briefly right but the went back to too low a value.
Basically things are working for recently entered or edited books but not for older entries.
Looking at my books collection in my style B, and sorting by weight, heaviest first i get:
The Decline and fall of the roman empire at number 7 weighing 4.8712 kg listed below books of lighter weight which have been edited recently - The Icon in place 4 at 2.811 kg.
Experimentation shows that editing these books and saving without changes moves them up the table and increases the total weight of my books.

>31 ringman: Ok thanks for the information. Older entries *should* have gotten updated - I will check why not.

>31 ringman: Ah found the bug - on books where weights were entered multiple times it was only checking the first one! I'm re-checking over all books and then will re-run.

Thanks for catching.

>31 ringman: The script which needed to run to fix these items should be completed.

Could you double check your data is correct now? Thanks!