How to create a conditional citation with relevant years?

[DrJJWMac]

> What do other users think? Would more user-defined fields be useful?

Please help me appreciate what the current status is. Bookends lists 20 "user" fields. The ones below should however likely not be considered freely available:

user16 - PMCID
user17 - DOI
user18 - PMID

The ones below are taken or not depending on various switch settings

user1 - cite key for BibTeX
user2 - edition
user3 - translator
user5 - call number
user6 - ISBN
user7 - language
user9 - trans auth
user10 - trans title
user11 - orig pub
user13 - # of vols

This leaves the following five fields as at the user's discretion: user4, user8, user12, user14, user15.

I have only used one of the above five at one point when I needed a place to store a prefix for attachment names. I've since found a different approach.

I have no issues with adding more user fields even though I would not use them.

[DrJJWMac]

> I often need to evaluate a book for educational purposes (standard work, obsolete, first class, for beginners only, for advanced learners, etc.) and I’m forced to cram this into the Keyword field because all other fields are already taken.

Just curious. Why not use tags? level-standard, level-obsolete, level-1stclass, level-beginner, level-advanced.

[Jon]

If you are in the humanities, PMID and PMCID are available. And there may be exceptions, but if you are in the physical or biomedical sciences, you are unlikely to use Orig Pub, Call Num, or Trans Auth or Trans Title (there is a field for Translator, which is also unlikely to be used).

I agree about tagging (by which I assume you mean color labels), which can also be used in smart groups. Or ratings (0 through 5 stars), unless they are already being used). Or even static groups

Jon
Sonny Software

[DrJJWMac]

> I agree about tagging (by which I assume you mean color labels), which can also be used in smart groups. Or ratings (0 through 5 stars), unless they are already being used). Or even static groups

I truly meant tags, not color labels or ratings. I see a disadvantage in using color labels as this ties them to one specific use. I would by example be frustrated to set the color labels as such for one of my libraries and then go to a different library where I need color labels such as (Significant, Active, Not Relevant ...). I also would struggle with star ratings trying for example to remember whether 1 star means standard work or beginner.

So, tags with "level" to indicate that this is a LEVEL rating followed by the rating itself are the most intuitive to me.

One disadvantage to using tags is that they can only be applied to a reference that has an attachment. As a tangent to this thread: perhaps the restriction can be lifted someday to allow users to put tags on references even when they do not have an attachment.

[Jon]

Those tags are Finder tags, and are used system-wide (e.g. by Spotlight). And they belong to the PDF, not Bookends. So any app that can organize by PDF tags can use the ones that Bookends assigns (and Bookends can use the ones they assign). The use you are advocating is just a keyword (tag is the the new keyword, like application is the new program). And the OP is using them now.

I wasn't pointing out what you, or any particular user, should use. I was pointing out that there are many ways to assign the kinds of "tags" he is using other than keywords. Unlike your usage case, most users have only one library, so there is no issue with the meaning changing. With ratings, it would seem pretty easy to equate the number of stars with the level, in ascending order. Having static groups with the assigned names is also easy to set up. In other words, assigning keywords is just one of many ways to organize references.

Jon
Sonny Software

[DrJJWMac]

I see why tags won't work. It seems there are many ways to address the problem in addition to user fields. Thanks.