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

Re: !@!Re: [gutvol-d] [Fwd: Folio files]
by Joshua Hutchinson 17 Dec '04

17 Dec '04

You know, it's like you're deliberately trying to make me angry! NO ONE HAS SUGGESTED SWEEPING IT AWAY! In fact, every person that has suggested a change of some kind has advocated putting the obsolete format document somewhere accessible. Just not right out in front where an uninformed visitor will see it, click it and get frustrated. It reflects poorly on PG as a whole and turns off potential users from ever coming back. Move the bloody thing into the OLD subdirectory. That's what the OLD subdirectory is for. Use it as such. Is the text version we have the exact same document as the folio version or where they created from separate sources? If it is the same, we should move the folio into the text's etext number and free up a number. If they are from separate sources, can any somehow generate a text file from the Folio file we have? Josh ----- Original Message ----- From: "Michael Hart" <hart(a)pglaf.org> To: "Project Gutenberg Volunteer Discussion" <gutvol-d(a)lists.pglaf.org> Subject: Re: !@!Re: [gutvol-d] [Fwd: Folio files] Date: Thu, 16 Dec 2004 07:09:51 -0800 (PST) > > > On the one hand people complain that eBooks in general will never last, > simply because those big gov't databases were kept in formats no one > can read today. . .on the other hand you don't want this to be mentioned > up front. . . . > > None of the people arguing this case were there when we met with the > President of Folio, none of them were part of doing Gibbon's "Roman Empire" > . . .so please just leave it be. > > Some day, when you are all gone, perhaps someone else will sweep your > efforts under the carpet. . .and Google will go down as the inventor > of eBooks and the first eBook library. > > > > On Wed, 15 Dec 2004, D. Starner wrote: > > >> From the standpoint of an archivist, I have to fall on the side of > >> keeping all file formats available and accessible to the reader. PG is > >> as much a historical catalog as it is a library. > > > > Since when? Why? > > > > If we want to teach people about the death of old > > formats, maybe we should have a page about old formats, and how WordStar > > and Folio and other formats were da bomb, and how it's hard to find anything > > that can read them now. If they come across them in a search, how will they > > even know that it's an old format nobody can read? For all I would have > > known before this discussion, you could run out and buy an ebook reader that > > takes Folio, or download a program to read them. > > > > Remember that it's not just proprietary formats that die; I seem to remember > > code to read WordStar files in one of my old programming books, and there's > > a bunch of open source programs where you'd have to go through old CDs to > > find a version of the program that could read your files. > > -- > > ___________________________________________________________ > > Sign-up for Ads Free at Mail.com > > http://promo.mail.com/adsfreejump.htm > > > > _______________________________________________ > > gutvol-d mailing list > > gutvol-d(a)lists.pglaf.org > > http://lists.pglaf.org/listinfo.cgi/gutvol-d > > > _______________________________________________ > gutvol-d mailing list > gutvol-d(a)lists.pglaf.org > http://lists.pglaf.org/listinfo.cgi/gutvol-d

8 18

Re: !@!Re: [gutvol-d] [Fwd: Folio files]
by Joshua Hutchinson 16 Dec '04

16 Dec '04

----- Original Message ----- From: "Michael Hart" <hart(a)pglaf.org> > > On Thu, 16 Dec 2004, Joshua Hutchinson wrote: > > > Another paragraph, though, indicates that PGCC is a subset of the World > > eBook Library Consortia, which I'm almost positive is not related directly > > to PG. > > > [quote] Project Gutenberg Consortia Center, promoting global literacy by > > multiplying intellectual properties though Internet library lending and > > increasing access to digital archives and repositories. Project Gutenberg > > Consortia Center is a branch of The World eBook Library Consortia. [/quote] > > This is probably something that obviously needs correction, if you can send > the exact location I will forward it so it can be corrected immediately. > As far as I know, there should be no reference to World eBook Library. > BTW, this is a different World Library than donated us the Shakespeare > files from which we made book #100. > On the main pgcc.net page in the lower right corner, in the green side bar area. There is a Project Gutenberg Consortia Center logo with the above text below it. > > Josh > > > > PS Oh, and I strongly disagree with the characterisation of pgcc.net as the > > "new PG" site, which no matter how you MEAN it sound, it will imply that it > > is the "replacement" for the OLD site (gutenberg.org) > > Sorry, that was quoted from someone else who used the term > "new site (gutenberg.org)" in reference to the location of > the Greenstone program, and I obviously should have made > that quotation clearly marked. > Fair enough and thanks for the clarification. Josh

2 1

Re: !@!Re: [gutvol-d] [Fwd: Folio files]
by Joshua Hutchinson 16 Dec '04

16 Dec '04

As a side question --- Is PGCC a part of PG? Officially? Does Greg, for instance, have oversight over it. Is anyone from PG (outside of Michael) invovled in this site in any way? I know this is reopening old wounds around here, but the last paragraph on the PGCC home page makes it sound like this is an official part of PG, which I never understood to be the actual case... [quote] Up until now, Project Gutenberg has focused on the creation of the eBooks rather than their distribution and we have spent as much of our time on copyright as on eBook creation and distribution. This is our first attempt focused on distribution rather than creation. [/quote] Another paragraph, though, indicates that PGCC is a subset of the World eBook Library Consortia, which I'm almost positive is not related directly to PG. [quote] Project Gutenberg Consortia Center, promoting global literacy by multiplying intellectual properties though Internet library lending and increasing access to digital archives and repositories. Project Gutenberg Consortia Center is a branch of The World eBook Library Consortia. [/quote] Josh PS Oh, and I strongly disagree with the characterisation of pgcc.net as the "new PG" site, which no matter how you MEAN it sound, it will imply that it is the "replacement" for the OLD site (gutenberg.org) ----- Original Message ----- From: "Michael Ciesielski" <ciesiels(a)bigpond.net.au> To: "Michael S. Hart" <hart(a)pobox.com>, "Project Gutenberg Volunteer Discussion" <gutvol-d(a)lists.pglaf.org> Subject: Re: !@!Re: [gutvol-d] [Fwd: Folio files] Date: Fri, 17 Dec 2004 03:51:09 +1100 > > Michael Hart wrote: > > > Probably some confusion about domain names here: > > > > gutenberg.org = gutenberg.net the old site > > > > pgcc.net = gutenberg.us = gutenberg.cc the new site > > > Uh, excuse me? > > When did "PG2"/"PGCC"/"WEL" become the new Project Gutenberg site? > > -- > Michael Ciesielski > > _______________________________________________ > gutvol-d mailing list > gutvol-d(a)lists.pglaf.org > http://lists.pglaf.org/listinfo.cgi/gutvol-d

2 1

Re: !@!Re: [gutvol-d] [Fwd: Folio files]
by Joshua Hutchinson 16 Dec '04

16 Dec '04

Amen, Marcello. And thank you for spelling it out much clearer and calmer than I have been able to. Josh ----- Original Message ----- From: "Marcello Perathoner" <marcello(a)perathoner.de> To: "Michael S. Hart" <hart(a)pobox.com>, "Project Gutenberg Volunteer Discussion" <gutvol-d(a)lists.pglaf.org> Subject: Re: !@!Re: [gutvol-d] [Fwd: Folio files] Date: Thu, 16 Dec 2004 18:03:02 +0100 > > Michael Hart wrote: > > > > Sweeping it under the carpet is exactly what you are promoting here. > > Actually we are advocating greater visibility of the files in question. > > > Current situation: if a reader who looks for Gibbon *by chance* happens to > download the Folio files, she *may* realize that proprietary formats are bad. > > Disadvantage: more probably she will not realize where the problem is because > nobody told her and just form a bad opinion of PG: "What the hell do they keep > around files if nobody can read them ?" > > > > Proposed change: move the Folio files out of the catalog, write a "Hall of > Shame" page explaining the problem and link to the Folio files from there. > > Advantage: people who don't look for Gibbon can see the "Hall of Shame" page. > People actually realize the problem because it is explained to them. > > > > > -- 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: !@!Re: [gutvol-d] [Fwd: Folio files]
by Joshua Hutchinson 16 Dec '04

16 Dec '04

> > On Thu, 16 Dec 2004, Joshua Hutchinson wrote: > > > Michael, I know you're not this obtuse, so there must be something we are > > not understanding about each other's stance. > > > >> > >>> You know, it's like you're deliberately trying to make me angry! > >> > >> Sweeping it under the carpet is exactly what you are promoting here. > >> > > > > Maybe it is the word sweeping. > > > > "Sweeping it away" means deleting to me. > > Are you intentionally misquoting me and thinking no one will notice. > Yeah, Michael. I'm misquoting you. That's why your original words are exactly two lines above it. My quote was a simple mistake of putting the quote in the wrong spot. It was supposed to read: "Sweeping it" away means deleting it to me. > "Sweeping under the carpet/rug" is what I said. > > Putting out of view. > > > > I am most definitely NOT advocating that. (And no one I've seen has been.) > > It appears the opposite. > > Yep, it looks like you define sweeping differently than I do. Moving the file doesn't mean get rid of it or put where no one can see it. It moves it so that the search bar doesn't bring it up as the default search result. > > You can do that when there is no one left to remember the issue, > or you can try to help them remember the issue, because it IS > going to come up again. > If this really was an issue you cared about, you would have put a section up on the web page with links to the examples of why this is a "bad thing." You just seem to be arguing against change for the sake of arguing. As we are all fond of saying around here, if this bothers you so much, DO something about it. Create a page deriding proprietary formats. > > > I get messages all the time about things to improve, this has never > been one of them. . .not even once. > > When we get ONE message we consider it. What the heck do you call the message that started this whole thread? A big thank you for having an unreadable file out there? Come on, we do have a complaint message! > > Even if we only get one per year, it is still considered, > but it is not considered as the kind of major issue you want it to be. You're right. This isn't major. It should be fixed in about 30 seconds. But for some reason, you're arguing like mad to keep something that results in a lower level of usability. It is really boggling my mind. > > Change the search so it is last. That is exactly what moving the file to the OLD directory (which is a subdirectory of its current location), would do! > > Change the comments about not downloading it unless you have a Folio View. > Please add a remark that there used to be a free viewer but that Folio > changed its mind, just and any other company might do, such as Adobe > about .pdf files. . .and I will be MORE than happy for you, and for me. > Why do we need to handle this one differently than we would any other file in the collection. As (I believe) Andrew pointed out, this would normally be handled by moving the file to the OLD directory. So we have an established manner of handling these situations. You just seem to want to fight against it. If, however, putting a disclaimer in the search field is the best we can get... fine, I'll take it. At least it is something (if not the "best practice" method I'd like to see). Josh

1 0

Re: !@!Re: [gutvol-d] [Fwd: Folio files]
by Joshua Hutchinson 16 Dec '04

16 Dec '04

Michael, I know you're not this obtuse, so there must be something we are not understanding about each other's stance. > > > You know, it's like you're deliberately trying to make me angry! > > Sweeping it under the carpet is exactly what you are promoting here. > Maybe it is the word sweeping. "Sweeping it away" means deleting to me. I am most definitely NOT advocating that. (And no one I've seen has been.) I am advocating MOVING the file so that it is not the first thing someone sees when they do a search for that text. The easiest way to do that is to move it into the OLD directory. It is what it was created for. It is still there for anyone interested in PG history, but it doesn't confuse the average user who just wants to be able to read the e-book. > > It this were the case, lots of people would have complained by now. > > You are insiders. . .you have a distinctly different viewpoint. > It is well known that when people are searching the web, if they don't understand something, they are FAR more likely to just click away and never return. For every one person that complains, you'll have hundreds, if not thousands, that just clicked away never to return. > > > Is the text version we have the exact same document as the folio version or > > where they created from separate sources? If it is the same, we should move > > the folio into the text's etext number and free up a number. If they are > > from separate sources, can any somehow generate a text file from the Folio > > file we have? > > This is exactly the reason for having a separate number, > so people will NOT get the .nfo format unless they want it. > > BTW, you can still get the Folio reader with the TIME Magazing CDs > which sell for $1. > Moving the file to a new number is probably not a good idea. I was just kind of thinking out loud there. But it should be moved to the OLD directory so that Joe User doesn't see it as the FIRST THING IN HIS SEARCH LIST. Josh

3 2

Re: [gutvol-d] re: [BP] Google Partners with Oxford, Harvard & Others to Digitize Libraries
by Dennis McCarthy 16 Dec '04

16 Dec '04

"Non-printable" page? If you can display it on a screen, it should not be too difficult to capture the image. Can the "Print Screen" capture method be disabled? (Copies the screen's visual display to the clipboard, at least on MS-Windows--presume there is something similar for Linux and Mac.) Or will they try to figure out a way to keep that captured image from being fed to (or rendered unreadable) an OCR program? Time will tell, but my guess is that these page images will one way or another become a source of material for future PG volunteers. -----Original Message----- From: Michael Hart <hart(a)pglaf.org> Sent: Dec 15, 2004 10:34 AM To: Book People <spok+bookpeople(a)cs.cmu.edu> Subject: [gutvol-d] re: [BP] Google Partners with Oxford, Harvard & Others to Digitize Libraries > if they want more, they will have to click on the item and will then arrive at a second database, this one provided by one of the five libraries [NYCPL, Harvard, Michigan, Stanford, Oxford] where they will get a graphical representation of the non-printable page that contains the quotation. --------------------------- Dennis McCarthy nihil_obstat(a)mindspring.com

3 2

Re: !@!Re: [gutvol-d] [Fwd: Folio files]
by D. Starner 16 Dec '04

16 Dec '04

> From the standpoint of an archivist, I have to fall on the side of > keeping all file formats available and accessible to the reader. PG is > as much a historical catalog as it is a library. Since when? Why? If we want to teach people about the death of old formats, maybe we should have a page about old formats, and how WordStar and Folio and other formats were da bomb, and how it's hard to find anything that can read them now. If they come across them in a search, how will they even know that it's an old format nobody can read? For all I would have known before this discussion, you could run out and buy an ebook reader that takes Folio, or download a program to read them. Remember that it's not just proprietary formats that die; I seem to remember code to read WordStar files in one of my old programming books, and there's a bunch of open source programs where you'd have to go through old CDs to find a version of the program that could read your files. -- ___________________________________________________________ Sign-up for Ads Free at Mail.com http://promo.mail.com/adsfreejump.htm

3 3

excuse me
by Bowerbird＠aol.com 16 Dec '04

16 Dec '04

jon noring, please stop sending your replies to my bookpeople posts to other listserves, including one from which you've banned me. thank you. -bowerbird

1 0

Re: !@!Re: [gutvol-d] [Fwd: Folio files]
by Joshua Hutchinson 15 Dec '04

15 Dec '04

You're missing the point I'm trying to make, Michael. Keep the history. No problem. Just don't make it the DEFAULT that pops up when someone does a search. Joe User couldn't care less about our history. He just wants to read the book. So, give him the book that he CAN read. Put the "historical mistake" in the OLD subdirectory, where it is still available for those of us that care about such things. Josh PS I think the pop culture Simpsons reference flew right by you. ;) ----- Original Message ----- From: "Michael Hart" <hart(a)pglaf.org> To: "The gutvol-d Mailing List" <gutvol-d(a)lists.pglaf.org> Subject: Re: !@!Re: [gutvol-d] [Fwd: Folio files] Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2004 09:56:56 -0800 (PST) > > > On Wed, 15 Dec 2004, Joshua Hutchinson wrote: > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Michael Hart" <hart(a)pglaf.org> > > > >>> > >>> So any chance we can convert this file to a text file, make that the main > >>> entry and move the .nfo file to the OLD subdirectory? > >>> > >>> Josh > >> > >> Please stop trying to rewrite history. . . . > >> > >> This should be kept as a straighforward example > >> of what can and DOES happen with proprietary formats. > >> > >> > > > > Sorry. Gotta call bullshit on this one. Keeping the file in the OLD > > subdirectory maintains the history for those that wish to find it, while > > allowing better usability for those folks that simply want to read this > > particular work. > > Barnyard epithets aside, this is too important to sweep under the carpet. > > There is plenty of usability in other formats, so leave it be. . . . > > > > How frustrating do you think people would be if they went to their local > > library, found a book in the catalog that they wanted, but the only place > > they are allowed to access the book is in a backroom that is pitch black. > > Yeah, they have the book, but it is completely useless to the reader. > > That's the whole point. . .so don't hide it. . .MAKE the point, publicly. > > > > So, yeah, we have the book in PG... but it is completely useless to you. > > No. . .it's available in other formats. . .if you take a look. > > > > > > /nelson-voice-from-The-Simpsons > > > > HA HA > > > > /end-nelson-voice-from-The-Simpsons > > > > Josh > > > > Yes, you are correct, you are making a silly argument. > > > The President of Folio came to visit us here, > and promised the free Folio reader. . . . > > Of course this is ancient history to you, > but some of us remember, and do not want > such an effort wiped out of our history. > > It was a LOT of work. . . . > > Leave it be. . . . > > > Michael > _______________________________________________ > gutvol-d mailing list > gutvol-d(a)lists.pglaf.org > http://lists.pglaf.org/listinfo.cgi/gutvol-d

6 5