October 2004 - gutvol-d - lists.pglaf.org

Fundraising thru Amazon ???
by Marcello Perathoner 08 Oct '04

08 Oct '04

Warning: potential heresy ahead! Seeing that many `independent' PG websites are trying to make money using our books and our catalog data, basically mixing search results from PG and Amazon Ads, eg. http://www.abacci.com/books/ http://textual.net/access.gutenberg why not do some fundraising thru Amazon ourselves? Basically, we set up a page and tell our visitors: If you ever feel the need to buy a book at Amazon don't go there directly but always thru the PG site. Thus Amazon will pass a small percentage of the revenue back to PG. This way you can donate to PG without spending anything and virtually without any trouble. Just delete your old Amazon bookmark and bookmark this page instead. More details at: http://www.amazon.com/gp/browse.html?node=3435371 -- Marcello Perathoner webmaster(a)gutenberg.org

4 3

Re: [gutvol-d] Fundraising thru Amazon ???
by Joshua Hutchinson 07 Oct '04

07 Oct '04

I've got no problem with it. Just don't make it too obtrusive and I think it's a fine way to try to bring some income into our little corner of the Net. Josh ----- Original Message ----- From: Marcello Perathoner <marcello(a)perathoner.de> Date: Thu, 07 Oct 2004 20:34:59 +0200 To: Project Gutenberg volunteer discussion <gutvol-d(a)lists.pglaf.org> Subject: [gutvol-d] Fundraising thru Amazon ??? > Warning: potential heresy ahead! > > > > Seeing that many `independent' PG websites are trying to make money > using our books and our catalog data, basically mixing search results > from PG and Amazon Ads, eg. > > http://www.abacci.com/books/ > http://textual.net/access.gutenberg > > why not do some fundraising thru Amazon ourselves? > > > Basically, we set up a page and tell our visitors: > > If you ever feel the need to buy a book at Amazon > don't go there directly but always thru the PG site. > Thus Amazon will pass a small percentage of the revenue > back to PG. This way you can donate to PG without > spending anything and virtually without any trouble. > Just delete your old Amazon bookmark and bookmark > this page instead. > > > More details at: > > http://www.amazon.com/gp/browse.html?node=3435371 > > > > -- > Marcello Perathoner > webmaster(a)gutenberg.org > > _______________________________________________ > gutvol-d mailing list > gutvol-d(a)lists.pglaf.org > http://lists.pglaf.org/listinfo.cgi/gutvol-d

1 0

Re: [gutvol-d] Indexing Editors, etc.
by D. Starner 05 Oct '04

05 Oct '04

> I understand the need to conceal the date, publisher etc for most PG books. I don't. Most of the reprint editions I've seen don't; they usually have printed right on the verso which edition they are a copy of. > But I think an exception could be made if the book is over 100 years old. > Books of this age are likely to be among the first published and hence have > authenticity. Often the publisher has ceased publication, and in this case > (as opposed to being bought out) there is no harm in listing the publisher. I'm doing a lot of books over 100 years old that are new editions of older books. And there's a lot of cases where (for example) the American edition came out months after the British edition, but isn't considered authentic at all. Likewise, the Early English Text Society is still publishing, as is the Oxford University Press and most other university presses. I don't think time makes a bit of difference here. -- ___________________________________________________________ Sign-up for Ads Free at Mail.com http://promo.mail.com/adsfreejump.htm

1 0

re: [gutvol-d] re: toasted-cheese sandwich
by Bowerbird＠aol.com 04 Oct '04

04 Oct '04

scott said: > How does Z/M/L handle the 3 cases that I listed? oh please, nobody here wants to talk about z.m.l. ok, maybe 2 or 3 people, but nobody else. and those 2 or 3 should join the beta-test for my viewer-program, where we can discuss issues like the ones scott lists. zml_talk-subscribe(a)yahoogroups.com now i'm off to make that sandwich... -bowerbird p.s. to answer your question, though, scott, annotations could be used to make those notes.

1 0

re: toasted-cheese sandwich
by Bowerbird＠aol.com 04 Oct '04

04 Oct '04

michael said: > If the original source you use turns out to have errors, > as nearly all books do, do you want the errors preserved? me? nope. i want 'em corrected, with a note to that effect. but that's if you're _sure_ it's an error. it's not always that clear. if you _suspect_ something _might_ be an error, but aren't sure, even after detective work, i would want a note made to that effect. *** > However, we have tried to avoid the arguments that > come with this sort of thing, as per a previous discussion > about this, when we argued about the punctuation in > "To be or not to be." in such cases, make note of the arguments. :+) *** skippi said: > XML karl said: > TEI DTD ... > CSS scott said: > XML that x.m.l. it's good for _everything_, isn't it? :+) i just heard there's a new thing out now where x.m.l. can actually make you a toasted-cheese sandwich, no kidding, and you can even specify -- with a tag -- how dark or light you want the bread toasted. i gotta get me that thing, man, because i'm jonesin' for a toasted-cheese sandwich right now... -bowerbird

2 1

re: Re: [gutvol-d] Indexing Editors, etc.
by Bowerbird＠aol.com 04 Oct '04

04 Oct '04

marevalo said: > > it would be great to have the complete bibliographical record > > of the book (or books) used as source for the digital edition anne said: > Or at least the date of original publication > and the name of the original publisher. this is a recurring request, of course. it might be interesting to have a public forum, like a wiki, where requests like these could be made, so we could see the cumulation. as it is, i get the distinct impression these go in one ear and out the other, and we go along in ignorant bliss thinking that all of our users are completely happy... -bowerbird

6 5

Re: [gutvol-d] Indexing Editors, etc.
by D. Starner 04 Oct '04

04 Oct '04

Michael Hart writes: > If the original source you use turns out to have errors, > as nearly all books do, do you want the errors preserved? Yes. That's way too unconditional, and there's a lot of minor errors in texts that we can just correct; but I've been reading a book on Beowulf which talks about one of the first published transcriptions that "corrected" a lot of things and screwed with work on Beowulf for 50 years. I hate to imagine us adding anacronistic spelling to a work or making a work harder to understand. On DP, people frequently ask about obvious errors that turn out to be correct. If we want to be editors, let us be editors and take full responsibility for checking other editions and writing introductions and bibliographies and keeping notes about what we've changed. -- ___________________________________________________________ Sign-up for Ads Free at Mail.com http://promo.mail.com/adsfreejump.htm

2 1

Re: [gutvol-d] Indexing Editors, etc.
by Gutenberg9443＠aol.com 02 Oct '04

02 Oct '04

In a message dated 9/19/2004 10:38:22 AM Mountain Standard Time, marevalo(a)marevalo.net writes: And it would be great to have the complete bibliographical record of the book (o books) used as source for the digital edition on every new text. Or at least the date of original publication and the name of the original publisher. Not having those makes it difficult to cite the book in research work. I usually resort to going to the Library of Congress record to get that, and then include the fact that this is an on-line edition etc. etc. etc. Anne

4 3