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