- gutvol-d - lists.pglaf.org

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

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

15 Dec '04

----- Original Message ----- From: "Greg Newby" <gbnewby(a)pglaf.org> > > On Tue, Dec 14, 2004 at 03:56:11PM -0800, Andrew Sly wrote: > > > > > > On Tue, 14 Dec 2004, Marcello Perathoner wrote: > > > > > Michael Hart wrote: > > > > > > > It is VERY important to keep example of files that once had free readers > > > > that are available no longer. . .if nothing more than examples of why we > > > > don't put everything into any particular proprietary format. > > > > > > Would there be a better way to keep those "examples" than to keep them > > > in the collection buried beneath a ton of other files where they just > > > pop up per chance to disgruntle users who inadvertently download them ? > > > > > > > When old files get reposted in the new directory structure, > > any formats like this, that cannot be updated, are moved into > > an "old" directory. > > > > Is that something like what you were thinking? > > > > Andrew > > While this is our usual method, unfortunately this > particular title (#900) is its own eBook # in the > Folio format. > > May 1997 Decline/Fall Of The Roman Empire, by Gibbon, Folio[dfre310f.xxx] 900 > > I think this is the only .nfo file we have. > 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

5 5

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

15 Dec '04

Apologies for coming in late here, but it should be noted that the following entry was added to the GUTINDEX in April, 2003: May 1997 Decline/Fall Of The Roman Empire, by Gibbon, Folio[dfre310f.xxx] 900 (NOTE: in proprietary Folio .nfo format; Vol. 3 only.) (See also: #890-895 for HTML format, #731-736 for plain text.) Also the following notes, especially for #892: Apr 1997 Decline/Fall Of The Roman Empire, by Gibbon V6 htm[dfre6xxh.xxx] 895 Apr 1997 Decline/Fall Of The Roman Empire, by Gibbon V5 htm[dfre5xxh.xxx] 894 Apr 1997 Decline/Fall Of The Roman Empire, by Gibbon V4 htm[dfre4xxh.xxx] 893 Apr 1997 Decline/Fall Of The Roman Empire, by Gibbon V3 htm[dfre3xxx.xxx] 892 [This vol only also available as plain text in dfre3xx.txt/.zip] Apr 1997 Decline/Fall Of The Roman Empire, by Gibbon V2 htm[dfre2xxh.xxx] 891 Apr 1997 Decline/Fall Of The Roman Empire, by Gibbon V1 htm[dfre1xxh.xxx] 890 [Author: Edward Gibbon] (Note: The above 6 files are HTML conversions of ebook #'s 731-736) Occasionally, one may find other tidbits of useful information inside GUTINDEX.ALL, especially for some of the more esoteric items. It is a holding place for such info until such time as something better comes along. For example, the above may or may not be useful when updating a bibrec in the future. And as I haven't expressed an opinion lately, herewith is mine for #900: #900 should be moved to /9/0/900/old/, and a 900-readme.txt or dfre310f- readme.txt should be placed in /9/0/900/ explaining the situation, including the reasons it has not been discarded; it _is_ a part of PG history, as documented in the newsletters over the years, and prior to that, in the various maillists. And besides, it makes for lively discussions every couple of years. If no one else wants to, I'll write a brief (less than 10K words?) readme when the time comes to "update" this posting. FWIW, [<G>eorge]

1 0

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

15 Dec '04

----- 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. 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. So, yeah, we have the book in PG... but it is completely useless to you. /nelson-voice-from-The-Simpsons HA HA /end-nelson-voice-from-The-Simpsons Josh

2 1

Re: [ebook-community] Google Question for Michael Hart
by Michael Hart 15 Dec '04

15 Dec '04

On Tue, 14 Dec 2004, Roy Lewis wrote: > > What is Michael Hart's take on the latest from Google? I wonder how > this will impact Project Gutenberg? Will this do what you have been > trying to do but with a LOTS of MONEY behind it? > > Roy Lewis > Garland, TX Today is the day I have to write and send the Project Gutenberg Weekly Newsletter, and I have only 2:20 to the deadline, so I hope you will allow me to come back to answer that in a bit, but if you have a specific question I hope I can answer right away. However, I think you will find that these billion dollar giants don't actually have anything in mind that would be definable as an eBook as the term has been being use. . .i.e. you can't keep it, you can't print it, you can't cut and paste quotations that are more than a "snippet," as they call it, you can't make your own concordance, index, edition, or carry a million dollars of retail value books with you on a DVD or two. In addition, I guarantee that Project Gutenberg will be the first to offer such a "Million Dollar DVD" of eBooks, and will be the first to present a collection of 50,000 eBooks, and, most liklely will be the first to offer 100,000 eBooks for any kind of service, but certainly for free download. As for getting into the millions, I'm going to wait until we're approaching 100,000 to focus all that tightly on getting into 7 figures of eBooks. BTW, they said 15 million eBooks. . .and I'm not sure they HAVE 15 million eBooks that they can legally use in the worldwide service they announced yesterday. I'd certainly be willing to bet dinner on it! More later, Thanks!!! So Nice To Hear From You! Happy Holidays!!! Michael Give FreeBooks!!! In 39 Languages!!! As of December 12, 2004 ~14,683 FreeBooks at: ~317 to go to 15,000 http://www.gutenberg.org http://www.gutenberg.net We are ~96% of the way from 10,000 to 15,000. Now even more PG eBooks In 104 Languages!!! http://gutenberg.cc http://gutenberg.us Michael S. Hart <hart(a)pobox.com> Project Gutenberg Executive Coordinator^M "*Internet User ~#100*" If you do not receive a prompt reply, please resend, keep resending.

1 0