September 2012 - gutvol-d - lists.pglaf.org

straight quotes
by Bowerbird＠aol.com 26 Sep '12

26 Sep '12

carlo said: > For example, one cannot assume that > a ' between letters is an apostrophe, hence > rendered with a right single quotation mark > (do you know the standard exception in English?) no, carlo, i don't know the exception. what is it? -bowerbird

2 1

might have a suitable dead trees edition
by Bowerbird＠aol.com 26 Sep '12

26 Sep '12

greg said: > There ARE master scans available for a number of eBooks. not for "classics" that were posted early and are downloaded often. > I'm going to visit B&N today to see whether they > might have a suitable dead trees edition for this purpose. it'd be a _very_ bad idea to use such a version as a "master". the good part about that idea is that a modern printing will give very clean o.c.r. if that o.c.r. was then proofed against a _worthy_ scan-set -- one that was published "back then" -- it _might_ (emphasis on "might") save a bunch of proofing... (depending on the source used by the current-day publisher). it's worth an experiment, but i would be very sensitive to whether it was actually working well, and quit if it wasn't. -bowerbird

1 0

blahblahblahblah
by Bowerbird＠aol.com 26 Sep '12

26 Sep '12

jon said: > 1. Develop a methodology for nominating master scans > where no record of provenance if extant text exists. > > 2. Source master scans and upload to PG. > > 3. Run master scans through DP until P2 > using LOTE non-clothing exception. > Capture P2 output and diff it against extant text > to produce the RTT. Note that if P2 output is perfect > the RTT _is_ P2 output. > > 4. Diff RTT against extant text > to produce comprehensive errata list, > and deliver to WWs so they can update the e-texts. > > And that, for the moment, is the limit of my ambition. > As Bowerbird points out, I have more than likely > just described an impossible scenario, even though > from a technical point of view it is completely trivial. well, yes, it's "impossible" because the people who would be necessary to make it work have no interest in doing it. but even if they did, this isn't really "completely trivial"... the twist is your assumption that there _must_ be a solid and usable provenance for the existing e-texts. for some of the classic e-texts, though, the "source" was an amalgamation of several different editions... so you're not gonna find a scan-set for "provenance". and for others, the "source" document was a _reprint_ done by the "classics" imprint of a corporate publisher. so you're not going to find a scan-set for those, either. (and even if you did, you wouldn't want to use it, since those imprints often "took liberties" with the real text.) therefore, steps 3 and 4 in your list simply won't work, not in the way that you've described them. furthermore, the whitewashers aren't gonna accept any "error-reports" that might be based on your work, because your scan-set wasn't the actual source of the currently-existing e-text. (the fact that the currently-existing file _has_no_source_ is of little concern to them, or to anybody else, it'd seem, except to some of us obsessive-compulsive fuss-budgets, although i've predicted, for some time, that will change.) the simple solution, of course, would be to replace the unsourced file with the one that has a solid provenance. but, as we see, p.g. doesn't seem to want to do that... -bowerbird p.s. it's also worth stating that even a replacement will _not_ be a cure-all. many end-users get their files from "republishers" -- manybooks.com, feedbooks.com, etc. -- and i'm not sure if those republishers go back and re-do the low-numbered "classics", even when they're replaced.

1 0

Improving Dracula?
by Peter Hatch 26 Sep '12

26 Sep '12

On Wed, Sep 26, 2012 at 10:35 AM, Greg Newby <gbnewby(a)pglaf.org> wrote: > My suggestion has been to start from scratch with a new scan set, > rather than trying to fix existing eBooks. It's OK to choose > a title we already have. I'm going to visit B&N today to see whether > they might have a suitable dead trees edition for this purpose. This reminds me, I spent some time looking into editions of Dracula, and it could really use a new scan. I found details of the editions at http://www.cesnur.org/2003/dracula/I.htm - there exists an 1899 American edition that is worse than the original, due to numerous minor changes and one significant alteration - from cesnur.org: That alteration occurs in chapter four near the end of Harker’s diary entry for June 29. He is describing a conversation he overheard between the Count and the three women who also resided in the castle. In the English edition, Dracula says, "Wait. Have patience. Tomorrow night, tomorrow night, is yours!" while the American edition reads, "Wait! Have patience! Tonight is mine. Tomorrow night is yours!" The origin and meaning of this change, the American edition implying that Dracula will feed off of Harker, the only hint of Dracula feeding on a male, has become an issue in understanding the text. The Gutenberg edition of Dracula is based off the American text, as is every free scan I could find. -- Peter Hatch

1 0

straight quotes
by Bowerbird＠aol.com 26 Sep '12

26 Sep '12

mark- it's entirely possible to convert quotes between straight and curly. there are some edge cases, but they are _extremely_uncommon_. i've detailed how to do it here many times. look in the archives if you really want to do it. i'm tired of explaining it repeatedly. the thing is, at project gutenberg, each book-producer can decide for themselves whether they want to use straight or curly quotes, so you're stuck with whatever they decide. unless you do the work. i'm truly sorry if this offends your typographic sensibilities, but nobody is gonna force the book-producers to curl their quotes. so you might just try to get used to taking them like they come. i suggest you think about more important matters in the world. there must be some. -bowerbird

1 0

blahblahblah
by Bowerbird＠aol.com 26 Sep '12

26 Sep '12

roger said: > I wonder if this paragraph > summarizes the basics of > what has been proposed: i think the thing you left out, roger, is that jon wants to "update" the files of the books downloaded most often. but those are the very files which the whitewashers are least likely to replace, at least as far as i have been able to tell. unless the updater did the original one. or unless the updater is a whitewasher... (and if anyone sees _any_ evidence to the contrary, i would certainly love to hear it.) the whitewashers are quite willing to accept "new" versions of these classic old chestnuts, but they're going to give them new numbers, and not overwrite the currently-existing files. and the other thing you left out, roger, is that jon isn't interested in doing this _unless_ the old chestnuts are replaced. he doesn't want to upload different files, let alone do this experiment elsewhere. at least that's what i heard him saying... so it appears that we are at an impasse, which is probably why you hear the sound... ...of crickets chirping... -bowerbird

1 0

eb.readingroo.ms
by don kretz 26 Sep '12

26 Sep '12

I can scavenge some code from DP-IT and offer a facility for viewing images and text in parallel using the WordPress installation at eb.readingroo.ms . A couple issues poked up in the process of checking this out. 1. It is possible to use the Trac installation that Greg set up on the same server. But it's written in Python, in which I'm but a novice, and anyway it would be preferable to set up a web service to query for text and images using something like JSON or XML/RPC. If someone (i.e. Roger) could look into using the Trac component architecture (Google for info; looks reasonable to me) we could collaborate on the API contracts and make it available broadly from anywhere (and in my specific case PHP and javascript.) 2. Just about any practical use I can think of requires synchronizing images and text, which for any technique I can think of requires that a.) the images be available and named according to page number (which is true if the PG naming convention was employed), and also b.) that the page numbers be recognizably embedded in the text stream (which happens sometimes in the html version, but I've never seen it in the plain text stream, which is more useful for our purposes.) What one would wish for is the text as it exists before the Post-Processors start their work; but unfortunately that's not available at all on PG, and stands behind the Wall of Status Quo on DP. This needs further discussion. Don

1 0

meanwhile, elsewhere birds are singing
by Bowerbird＠aol.com 25 Sep '12

25 Sep '12

some of you have checked out my jaguar demo. thanks. some of you got some errors on those external files -- like pride and prejudice, and the sherlock holmes book -- but i've fixed the input files if you wanna try again... the "october" version will be even more solid. see ya then. -bowerbird p.s. i'll be taking this to kickstarter soon. if the funding for my project(s) comes in, my code will go open-source.

1 0

and the crickets chirp
by Bowerbird＠aol.com 25 Sep '12

25 Sep '12

don said: > One wonders about how wwers distinguish between this would be the time where the whitewashers come in and delineate their policies for all of you to understand. cue the fanfare for the entry of the whitewashers... but i'm betting they won't do that. rather than explain a policy that you won't like one bit, they'll just stay silent and continue to be the black-box that you have to try and figure out from their actions... (and/or "non-actions", as the case might be.) but hey, can you blame them? they're just trying to protect their territory. each of them has put a _ton_ of work into p.g. -- quite literally thousands and thousands of hours, and some of them _tens_of_thousands_of_hours_. is it any wonder they want to protect the "old" versions? if they don't make that the traditional convention for p.g., then they know that _their_ work will soon be replaced too. the producers from the early days had to work _hard_. they had to buy expensive scanners and o.c.r. programs, or type in books by hand. and they did darn good work, considering the difficulty inherent in the task back then. now you guys wanna waltz in, with your scan-sets that cost you no work or time or energy, because you just downloaded them from google or the internet archive, who also did the o.c.r. for you. it's all so easy for you. you need to look at these matters from their perspective. there's also the tacit admission, when they "replace" an "old" e-text, that it was flawed, and needed corrections. that's sometimes a painful place to be forced to go to... so the question of updating e-texts is always gonna be one that is fraught with misgivings and mixed motives. *** on the other hand, the other problem here -- which many of you are conflating -- is the low quality of e-book files. here the problem lies with marcello, not the whitewashers. now, as most of you know, i think marcello is an asshole, because he _is_ an asshole. (most of you know that, too.) and yes, the problem with the low quality of e-book files is partly due to the fact that marcello is indeed an asshole. but unlike the difficulties involved with updating e-texts, it would be extremely simple to fix the e-book file output. a series of small changes would correct most of the flaws, right out of the box, and it wouldn't take much time at all. (this is why people can do the modifications so quickly and easily by themselves, because there's not that much to do.) but let me just, for half a minute here, defend marcello too. i can well understand why he would be stubborn about this, and refuse to implement even that series of small changes. it's because the people from d.p. have proven that they are unwilling to do what _they_ have to do, in order to improve the quality of the e-book output. so they've forced marcello to engage in a stand-off. he's saying, "if they won't budge, neither will i, and the quality of the e-book output will suffer." ok, so that's not a very strong defense, i grant you, but still, at least it shows why he might be motivated in such a way... otherwise, you've got to assume that he is purposely doing a sabotage of the e-book files for no good reason, and that would be beyond the pale, even for an asshole like marcello. you've got to explain why he wouldn't make the simple and obvious changes everyone knows would improve the output. *** underlying everything? the people who have the power to change things for the better have no interest in doing that. which is why, when you ask them for change or explanation, you will hear nothing except the sound of crickets chirping... -bowerbird

1 0

Re: [gutvol-d] improving blah blah blah
by Bowerbird＠aol.com 25 Sep '12

25 Sep '12

jon said: > my hope is that all the PG powers-that-be > are part of PG for the right reasons, that > they recognise that a problem exists, and > that they are keen that it gets fixed. you can grant them all of that. but none of that means that they are going to agree with you that you have the right solution. and they have the keys to the castle. > From what you say, it cannot get fixed > without buy-in from the WWs and Marcello > to a specific course of action, so the problem is > really one of generating consensus around > a course of action. right. and that hasn't ever happened here. ever. and it is clear that your plan will not do it either. i mean, we could all agree to re-do some e-texts -- without committing to your ms/rtt plan at all -- but the new e-texts would still be ignored by users. so you're not paying attention to the _real_ problem. > with an MS, an RTT and Knuth's genius > I can do a solo project that shames Amazon > in a day or two. well, there's another problem. you wanna use tex. go over to d.p. and see the tex contingent there. it's tiny. the learning curve is obviously too hard. > What I can't do is create the MS and RTT by myself. you're wrong. a scan-set is easy to obtain. and getting the text correct is not difficult. so, you know, go ahead and do your demo. do it for one book, e.g., "pride and prejudice". get the text from that pointer i gave to my site. > There seems to be a consensus around > a 10 book pilot forming. Success would mean that > 1 in 20 downloads would be of improved quality. > Sounds good to me. you're counting chickens when you don't even have any eggs yet. > DP co-operation may not be as crucial as I once thought. it's not "crucial" in the slightest. it would be a hindrance. > I think it is worth at least _trying_ to bring them on board. you're biting off more than you can chew as it is. and now you want to stuff a big decaying head in your mouth as well? d.p. stopped growing a very long time ago... soon they will start falling from their plateau. you already have an albatross around your neck. don't try to tie an anchor to your ankle as well... > I fully admit to having precisely zero knowledge > or experience regarding book editions and > availability of scans. I naively thought that > "someone" would know which edition > a given extant text was derived from > and that it would be straightforward to > find a decent scan given that knowledge. > This is cleary very wrong. sometimes it is easy. sometimes it is not. i've been unable to find any scan-set for the text used for the p.g. version of "pride and prejudice". > That we don't necessarily know the edition > of the extant text raises the issue of > which edition we lock in to. Who makes that decision? that's a non-issue. get a scanset from the internet archive, which will give you the o.c.r. as well. you correct that o.c.r. by comparing it against a clean text, resolving the diffs. > I conclude that Don is absolutely correct. > The initial action of a 10 book pilot should > involve nothing more or less than determining, > in each case, which edition and hence which scan > we are going to work with. ok, start with _one_ book, not 10. seriously. one. because you still have _no_ word from a whitewasher or marcello that _any_ change will be made to the site that will allow a corrected e-text to float to the surface. until p.g. gives some indication that it _truly_wants_ corrected editions, you are simply wasting your time. if i were you, i'd make 'em prove their intentions by bringing the books jim re-did to higher prominence. > We need someone knowledgeable to > guide this selection process and if necessary > make a final executive decision in each case. again, you're looking for some type of agreement that has _never_ever_ happened on this list before. besides... there's no reason you can't do _multiple_versions_ of a book. again, take my "pride and prejudice". i took one e-text and diffed it against another one. that pointed out the discrepancies between the two, which were either (1) an o.c.r. error in one or both, or (2) edition differences. you decide which it is by comparing each of the e-texts against its scan-set. at the end of the process, both e-texts are correct, with the caveat that both could conceivably have the identical o.c.r. error located in the same place. (although my research shows that to be very rare, quite less likely than one would think it might be.) being able to present multiple editions, and generate pointed evidence of the changes made across them, is an empowering thing, one that might be considered to be of considerable value by some people out there. scan-sets are plentiful these days. there's no reason to think that we need to limit ourselves to one edition. (having said that, however, i see _no_ useful purpose served by an e-text that _cannot_ show its provenance in a solid demonstrable way by pointing to a scan-set. but that's a point that i have made many times before.) *** greg said: > This is exactly opposite the PG policy. > We specificaly do NOT adhere to any print edition. see what kind of lunacy you are up against, jon? a policy that once made sense was retained until it no longer produced any solid benefit, and then _retained_even_longer_ as it became a liability, and now _is_still_retained_ even when it is stupid. heck, these people can't even _spell_ "specifically". > (That is part of why you will find it really hard to > find a matching print source for many PG eBooks.) which makes it very hard to submit an error-report that the whitewashers can't reject if they want to... now we are in the sad situation where the world is awash in p.g. e-texts which have zero provenance. if this doesn't change, there will come a time, and it's not far down the line, where project gutenberg will come to be considered a _liability_ to e-books, an example of _how_not_to_do_it_. how depressing. -bowerbird

4 3