
mjit raindancerstahl said:
Bowerbird admits his error, and apologizes. It's either a sign of the Apocalypse, or the Second Coming.
well, gee, i should hope there's a few other possibilities. because a choice of those two is limited and unfulfilling. indeed, it's not even a choice at all, but just a no-brainer. but, in actuality, this development isn't novel in the least. i've admitted every mistake of substance i've made here. every single one. and apologized for any which had personal ramifications, without regard for the degree of unimportance involved... so if you feel that is not the case, do please let me know, detailing the exact particulars, so that i can address them. specifically, is there anything i have done to wrong _you?_ -bowerbird

Oh, HEAVENS. I have disturbed the mighty Bowerbird with snarky hyperbole! See, a few times a year, I accidentally read something Bowerbird posts. I find his spoutings harsh, so most of the time I do the appropriate thing and delete whatever he sends without looking at it. This time, I accidentally opened it, and I was surprised to see something approaching civility coming from the notorious BB. And so, I made a comment that this must be a Sign that The End Is Nigh, musing over if it is a sign of Doom or Paradise. Then, because it was my hour of clicking the wrong thing, I hit send instead of discard. So what has Bowerbird done to offend me, personally? Filled my inbox with constant attacks against others, criticizing how PG is run, and railed on about how things ought to be run instead of doing what any sane person might and just taken his toys and gone home to build his own library. From the handful of his posts I read, BB would rather spend his time berating people who don't see things his way. Mind, I skim through the responses often enough, and I see that others give as good as they get, to a certain point. I read through a few volleys, hit delete when it gets too boring, and go on with my day. At some point, it always seems to devolve into a few rounds of Shut-up-no-you-shut-up before anyone gets far enough past this metaphoric third grade that they roll their eyes and walk away. I admit I don't agree with how things are done with the fixing of errors, but I figure I have no say in it until I can motivate myself to do something other than bitch that there's typos in my books. I apologize for the offense. Enjoy your seasonal holidays. -- Mjit RaindancerStahl answerwitch@gmail.com

On Fri, November 30, 2012 3:13 am, Mjit RaindancerStahl wrote:
I admit I don't agree with how things are done with the fixing of errors, but I figure I have no say in it until I can motivate myself to do something other than bitch that there's typos in my books.
An intriguing comment. If you find an error, what is the most frictionless process you can imagine to report back to the WWers that the error exists? If that process were implemented, would you use it? I have modified the Trac system on trac.readingroo.ms/Gutenberg to allow for anonymous submission of errata tickets. Is this system sufficiently painless that you would be more inclined to report errata?

If you find an error, what is the most frictionless process you can imagine to report back to the WWers that the error exists? If that process were implemented, would you use it?
If you are the original contributor, why can't you just log in and fix it yourself? If there is a bug log on a work you submitted, again, why can't you just log in and work off the bug log yourself? The idea is, I guess, that you can be trusted to fix the thousands of scannos, and make the thousands of other decisions necessary to get a work to PG in the first place -- but then as soon as you submit that work then you can no longer be trusted. Why? Because you are going to somehow sabotage your own efforts? How much sense is that?

On 2012-11-30, James Adcock wrote:
If you are the original contributor, why can't you just log in and fix it yourself?
You are right that it is weird that an original contributor can't easily edit their own work post publication, but I can't see how you would get away without some sort of gatekeeper mechanism without introducing compexity of the order of wikipedia. Maybe some sort of hierarchical responsibility for a work might help, where one of the white-washers still has ultimate ownership and final veto on publication, but general responsibility for maintenance is owned by either the original contributor or a nominated "grey-washer".

On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 1:20 PM, Lee Passey <lee@passkeysoft.com> wrote:
If you find an error, what is the most frictionless process you can imagine to report back to the WWers that the error exists? If that process were implemented, would you use it?
Highlight, right-click, send-to. Technology hasn't caught up to my level of laziness, AFAIK. -- Mjit RaindancerStahl answerwitch@gmail.com

If you find an error, what is the most frictionless process you can imagine to report back to the WWers that the error exists? If that process were implemented, would you use it?
Highlight, right-click, send-to. Technology hasn't caught up to my level of laziness, AFAIK.
Consider the "level of technology" I use when SR'ing my own efforts on my tablet reader: Right click on problem. Select "Highlight" Enter note describing problem. Then, a week or two later when I have SR'ed to the end, I just go through my "Highlight" notes one at a time and incorporate the fixes into my source. One can imagine emailing those highlights direct to PG -- the technology already exists! Consider the example here: https://kindle.amazon.com/profile/Jason-Boog/726625
participants (5)
-
Bowerbird@aol.com
-
James Adcock
-
Jon Hurst
-
Lee Passey
-
Mjit RaindancerStahl