to think that i first suggested reviewing old titles and fixing the errors in them way back in december of 2003, when p.g. was celebrating its 10,000th title. little did i know then that the library's quality would seemingly _never_ be a concern...
Well, to give an example case, I *did* rework a famous PG title, using a slightly different version, in part because I was frustrated by the original version implementation of some of the body text as an image. PG assigns a new number to the "new improved" version, PG "scores" same titles based on the number of downloads, customers see the old version has a huge number of downloads, and thus continue to download the "old broken" version rather than the "new fixed" version. Again, "quality" is literally in the eye of the beholder. It would be "nice" if PG customers could download a version appropriate for their choice of reader machine and actually read a PG book without the distraction of "major screw-ups." The famous title I reworked still had at least a dozen "obvious errors" that have never been fixed - even after 100s of thousands of downloads - presumably because the human mind patches over those errors so they never get seen. And the "text as image" problem doesn't get noticed because on the no-image versions of the text PG simply silently throws away part of the text [that part of the text implemented as image] so that customers never see as an error that which isn't there to be seen. Are these "major screw-ups"? Maybe not. What *is* a major screw-up , for example, is when PG automagically and consistently produces versions for a major reader machine with inappropriate and ugly paragraph formatting, book after book after book..