How to duplicate an entry within one database?

[gavagai]

Hi,
yesterday I had to duplicate an entry in one datebase. I could not open the database twice and copy the entry via drag and drop. I didn't find any other way. So I had to type in most of the data into a new database entry (or copy the entry field by field). Did I miss a better method?

[Jon]

Yes.

Open the reference window, then

Edit -> Copy Reference
Edit -> Paste Reference

Jon
Sonny Software

[tharpold]

Yes.

Open the reference window, then

Edit -> Copy Reference
Edit -> Paste Reference

Jon
Sonny Software

Hi Jon,

This question (and its solution) raises another interface oddity of Bookends that I would *very* much like to see addressed in future releases: it should be possible to Copy/Paste References in the List View.

I very seldom view a reference in the Reference Window ("Record View"?) unless I am editing it. Manipulating references in the List Window seems to me the more natural and more efficient method in all other circumstances.

TH

[Jon]

Hi,

This isn't an oddity, but reflects the way copy/paste reference is used. It is intended for making duplicates (one or many, and placing them in a particular position in the db, if you like) so that you can change only certain fields of a "master" reference (e.g. a book with multiple chapters). It only makes sense to do that if you are adding/editing references, in which case the reference window has to be open. References copied and pasted in the List View would still need to be opened to be edited.

Jon
Sonny Software

[gavagai]

Open the reference window, then

Edit -> Copy Reference
Edit -> Paste Reference

That does it exactly as I want. Thanks.
BTW Bookends is an excellent product. I have used two other Library software products (under Windows) and I have tested quite a few here for the Mac: nothing comes close to Bookends from any point of view. But I think even the most surprising is the ease of use although it has so many functions (which I am sure I use only to a small amount up till now).

[tharpold]

Hi,

This isn't an oddity, but reflects the way copy/paste reference is used. It is intended for making duplicates (one or many, and placing them in a particular position in the db, if you like) so that you can change only certain fields of a "master" reference (e.g. a book with multiple chapters). It only makes sense to do that if you are adding/editing references, in which case the reference window has to be open. References copied and pasted in the List View would still need to be opened to be edited.

Jon
Sonny Software

Hi Jon,

Maybe it's just me, but my approach in this situation would be to make the duplicate in the List View, then open the duplicate so as to edit it. Opening the record first seems out-of-order: I think the procedure here is --

1) Duplicate the record as a whole -- I don't need to think about its details yet, only to work with the most compact representation of it possible
2) Open and edit the details of the duplicate so that they are different
3) Save the edited version, which now appears in the List View as a distinctly different record.

The approach Bookends now uses shows me more information than I need in step 1, and I find this distracting.

TH

[Jon]

Well, I think this boils down more to a matter of taste than anything else (the number of steps is similar in both approaches, and the result will be identical). The way it is implemented now is better in a number of instances that you have probably not considered. For example, when you copy/paste the paste will go to the end of the database rather than where you may want it. And what if the List View is unsorted (or sorted by reference number) -- does the selection move to the pasted reference? What if you copy/paste multiple references?

As I said, this feature is meant to be used when you are manually entering reference data and want to "clone" a reference so that you only need to edit a few details that vary. The way it works now is unambiguous and straightforward. So at least for now I'll leave it alone. I'm willing to revisit it later, though, if some real advantage becomes clear.

Jon
Sonny Software

[gavagai]

..., this feature is meant to be used when you are manually entering reference data and want to "clone" a reference so that you only need to edit a few details that vary.

That's how I use it. I have a couple of series books: they come annually and nothing changes except the numbering and every 10 or 20 years the editor dies and I have to fill in a new editor from then on

[tharpold]

The way it is implemented now is better in a number of instances that you have probably not considered. For example, when you copy/paste the paste will go to the end of the database rather than where you may want it. And what if the List View is unsorted (or sorted by reference number) -- does the selection move to the pasted reference? What if you copy/paste multiple references?

Jon
Sonny Software

If the List Window is sorted (set in the Preferences), and copy/paste were permitted in the List Window, wouldn't the duplicate end up just below the original? The Sort setting seems to me the proper way to disambiguate outcomes of pasting in the List View.

I would also recommend moving the selection to the pasted references -- that seems to me in keeping with how this sort of action is handled in other apps.

TH

[Jon]

If the List Window is sorted (set in the Preferences), and copy/paste were permitted in the List Window, wouldn't the duplicate end up just below the original?

Yes, if the List View is sorted by author (or most fields). But if it is not, or sorted by unique ID or reference number, it would not.

Jon
Sonny Software

[tom]

Hi all,
Why not just permitt to copy/paste references in both views? I'm not very fan of features that are enabled only in one view...
tom

[Jon]

Because as I pointed out above, there are other interface considerations to take into account if one has copy in the list view.

This is a very small point, and I have nothing more to add. If anyone has a compelling reason why the current procedure is inadequate, I'm willing to listen.

Jon
Sonny Software

[Eingang]

If the List Window is sorted (set in the Preferences), and copy/paste were permitted in the List Window, wouldn't the duplicate end up just below the original?

Yes, if the List View is sorted by author (or most fields). But if it is not, or sorted by unique ID or reference number, it would not.

Presumably people who are adding new references to a list view have some expectation of where that entry will appear based on how they're currently sorting the list. This is no different. If I have it sorted by author, I'd expect a "pasted" copy to be right below the original. If I was sorting by ID, then I'd expect it at the top or bottom (depending on the sort order).

I don't think a copy/paste in the list view would break the interface or behave in an unexpected way. It would be the same as saying, "You can't add a new reference in the list view" and that doesn't make sense either. A copy of an existing reference is the same as a new reference but with some pre-filled in info (which you may or may not want to edit right away).

Just my two cents. (-:

[swisswuff]

Why is the Copy - Paste Reference command, as used to duplicate entries for minor adjustments in case of several similar articles, entirely disabled in my Bookends?

I have not found any situation where I could actually use this command, as it seems to be permanently grayed out.

Thank you very much for any suggestion.

[Jon]

The menu option is enabled in the Reference Window view. You can't copy/paste a reference from the List View.

Jon
Sonny Software