Re: !@!Re: [gutvol-d] [Fwd: Folio files]
You know, it's like you're deliberately trying to make me angry! NO ONE HAS SUGGESTED SWEEPING IT AWAY! In fact, every person that has suggested a change of some kind has advocated putting the obsolete format document somewhere accessible. Just not right out in front where an uninformed visitor will see it, click it and get frustrated. It reflects poorly on PG as a whole and turns off potential users from ever coming back. Move the bloody thing into the OLD subdirectory. That's what the OLD subdirectory is for. Use it as such. 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? Josh ----- Original Message ----- From: "Michael Hart" <hart@pglaf.org> To: "Project Gutenberg Volunteer Discussion" <gutvol-d@lists.pglaf.org> Subject: Re: !@!Re: [gutvol-d] [Fwd: Folio files] Date: Thu, 16 Dec 2004 07:09:51 -0800 (PST)
On the one hand people complain that eBooks in general will never last, simply because those big gov't databases were kept in formats no one can read today. . .on the other hand you don't want this to be mentioned up front. . . .
None of the people arguing this case were there when we met with the President of Folio, none of them were part of doing Gibbon's "Roman Empire" . . .so please just leave it be.
Some day, when you are all gone, perhaps someone else will sweep your efforts under the carpet. . .and Google will go down as the inventor of eBooks and the first eBook library.
On Wed, 15 Dec 2004, D. Starner wrote:
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
_______________________________________________ gutvol-d mailing list gutvol-d@lists.pglaf.org http://lists.pglaf.org/listinfo.cgi/gutvol-d
_______________________________________________ gutvol-d mailing list gutvol-d@lists.pglaf.org http://lists.pglaf.org/listinfo.cgi/gutvol-d
On Thu, 16 Dec 2004 10:20:52 -0500, Joshua Hutchinson <joshua@hutchinson.net> wrote:
You know, it's like you're deliberately trying to make me angry!
NO ONE HAS SUGGESTED SWEEPING IT AWAY!
In fact, every person that has suggested a change of some kind has advocated putting >the obsolete format document somewhere accessible. Just not right out in front where an >uninformed visitor will see it, click it and get frustrated. It reflects poorly on PG as a whole >and turns off potential users from ever coming back.
Given my rather infrequent posting to this list (although long time lurking from a variety of email addresses) I'm rather hesitant to throw more fuel on the fire. But I have to agree with the idea behind Joshu Hutchinson and Jon Noring's suggestions. The folio is confusing when it is the first return result, and people do have a tendency to hit the first result. I believe Greenstone (the new software behind the scenes at gutenberg.org) allows pretty precise sorting of returns on various conditions. Would it be possible to always return the text format as the first return? This would help highlight the importance of the text format without having to decide when a format is outdated or unsupported, needs to be moved to the suggested "old" directory, or a "stupid, stupid formats" page. I know my first thought when seeing the folio was to think "That's got to be an error, who would be crazy enough to publish that as a folio". But my excuse was it as a long day ;). Jon Gorman
On Thu, 16 Dec 2004, Jon Gorman wrote:
On Thu, 16 Dec 2004 10:20:52 -0500, Joshua Hutchinson <joshua@hutchinson.net> wrote:
You know, it's like you're deliberately trying to make me angry!
NO ONE HAS SUGGESTED SWEEPING IT AWAY!
In fact, every person that has suggested a change of some kind has advocated putting >the obsolete format document somewhere accessible. Just not right out in front where an >uninformed visitor will see it, click it and get frustrated. It reflects poorly on PG as a whole >and turns off potential users from ever coming back.
Given my rather infrequent posting to this list (although long time lurking from a variety of email addresses) I'm rather hesitant to throw more fuel on the fire. But I have to agree with the idea behind Joshu Hutchinson and Jon Noring's suggestions. The folio is confusing when it is the first return result, and people do have a tendency to hit the first result.
No one is suggesting it should be the first result.
I believe Greenstone (the new software behind the scenes at gutenberg.org) allows pretty precise sorting of returns on various conditions. Would it be possible to always return the text format as the first return? This would help highlight the importance of the text format without having to decide when a format is outdated or unsupported, needs to be moved to the suggested "old" directory, or a "stupid, stupid formats" page.
However, this sort of sweeping out of sight is not acceptable. Try again when those of us who spent all the effort on this Folio project are dead, eh?
I know my first thought when seeing the folio was to think "That's got to be an error, who would be crazy enough to publish that as a folio".
That's the whole point. . .let us make that point.
On Thu, 16 Dec 2004 08:04:49 -0800 (PST), Michael Hart <hart@pglaf.org> wrote:
On Thu, 16 Dec 2004, Jon Gorman wrote:
On Thu, 16 Dec 2004 10:20:52 -0500, Joshua Hutchinson <joshua@hutchinson.net> wrote:
You know, it's like you're deliberately trying to make me angry!
NO ONE HAS SUGGESTED SWEEPING IT AWAY!
In fact, every person that has suggested a change of some kind has advocated putting >the obsolete format document somewhere accessible. Just not right out in front where an >uninformed visitor will see it, click it and get frustrated. It reflects poorly on PG as a whole >and turns off potential users from ever coming back.
Given my rather infrequent posting to this list (although long time lurking from a variety of email addresses) I'm rather hesitant to throw more fuel on the fire. But I have to agree with the idea behind Joshu Hutchinson and Jon Noring's suggestions. The folio is confusing when it is the first return result, and people do have a tendency to hit the first result.
No one is suggesting it should be the first result.
I believe Greenstone (the new software behind the scenes at gutenberg.org) allows pretty precise sorting of returns on various conditions. Would it be possible to always return the text format as the first return? This would help highlight the importance of the text format without having to decide when a format is outdated or unsupported, needs to be moved to the suggested "old" directory, or a "stupid, stupid formats" page.
However, this sort of sweeping out of sight is not acceptable.
Michael, I think people are trying to understand what you mean by hiding or sweeping away. The mere fact the folio appears first is an unintentional accident of sorting. You yourself says that no one is arguing it should be first. Yet, down here you say changing the order is not acceptable. Should we be moving all the obsolete formats to the front, essentially doing the opposite? What service does that provide? Indeed by having the text format be first and foremost, it should send a clear signal of the preferred format, and can be linked to another page explaining why.
Try again when those of us who spent all the effort on this Folio project are dead, eh?
Michael, no one is trying to disparage your efforts. Indeed, I have some questions. Do we have it in writing there would always be a free reader? I've seen some algorithms and code that decodes the folio format. Would the lack a free reader for the folio allow these to be legally available for a person to develop a reader/converter program for it?
I know my first thought when seeing the folio was to think "That's got to be an error, who would be crazy enough to publish that as a folio".
That's the whole point. . .let us make that point.
Right.....but how often are encodings named after words like folio or quarto? Just serves another dose of confusion.
_______________________________________________ gutvol-d mailing list gutvol-d@lists.pglaf.org http://lists.pglaf.org/listinfo.cgi/gutvol-d
On Thu, 16 Dec 2004, Jon Gorman wrote:
Joshu Hutchinson and Jon Noring's suggestions. The folio is confusing when it is the first return result, and people do have a tendency to hit the first result.
No one is suggesting it should be the first result.
I believe Greenstone (the new software behind the scenes at gutenberg.org) allows pretty precise sorting of returns on various conditions. Would it be possible to always return the text format as the first return? This would help highlight the importance of the text format without having to decide when a format is outdated or unsupported, needs to be moved to the suggested "old" directory, or a "stupid, stupid formats" page.
However, this sort of sweeping out of sight is not acceptable.
Michael, I think people are trying to understand what you mean by hiding or sweeping away.
Putting something where it is not likely be be seen is sweeping under the carpet. . .period.
The mere fact the folio appears first is an unintentional accident of sorting.
Then change the sorting technique so it is last. . . .
You yourself says that no one is arguing it should be first.
I haven't seen anyone say it should be first, no one at all.
Yet, down here you say changing the order is not acceptable.
No, I don't. . .just moving it to another directory is.
Should we be moving all the obsolete formats to the front,
What kind of question is that?
essentially doing the opposite? What service does that provide? Indeed by having the text format be first and foremost, it should send a clear signal of the preferred format, and can be linked to another page explaining why.
As above, I am not saying it should come up as first, as default, etc.
Try again when those of us who spent all the effort on this Folio project are dead, eh?
Michael, no one is trying to disparage your efforts. Indeed, I have some questions. Do we have it in writing there would always be a free reader? I've seen some algorithms and code that decodes the folio format. Would the lack a free reader for the folio allow these to be legally available for a person to develop a reader/converter program for it?
Personally, I wouldn't go through the effort, even if Folio has folded and we can get the rights. It's JUST and example. . .leave it be, put in a comment describing this better than the one that is in there now.
Jon Gorman wrote:
I believe Greenstone (the new software behind the scenes at gutenberg.org) allows pretty precise sorting of returns on various conditions.
What? Who installed Greenstone without my noticing it?
Would it be possible to always return the text format as the first return?
How can the software know that #900, #733 and #892 are the same book ? (If they are indeed the same, which I cannot establish, lacking a Folio viewer.) The Right Thing to do is to reindex all formats (TXT, HTML, Folio) under one etext number. Then the software would sort it in a sensible way. -- Marcello Perathoner webmaster@gutenberg.org
On Thu, 16 Dec 2004 17:21:46 +0100, Marcello Perathoner <marcello@perathoner.de> wrote:
Jon Gorman wrote:
I believe Greenstone (the new software behind the scenes at gutenberg.org) allows pretty precise sorting of returns on various conditions.
What? Who installed Greenstone without my noticing it?
Errr, oops. Dang, sorry about that. Could have sworn I heard a bit ago that you guys were putting it in and the new site (gutenburg.org) sure looks like Greenstone. Sorry about that. This is exactly why I usually keep my mouth shut about these types of things ;). Jon Gorman
On Thu, 16 Dec 2004, Jon Gorman wrote:
On Thu, 16 Dec 2004 17:21:46 +0100, Marcello Perathoner <marcello@perathoner.de> wrote:
Jon Gorman wrote:
I believe Greenstone (the new software behind the scenes at gutenberg.org) allows pretty precise sorting of returns on various conditions.
What? Who installed Greenstone without my noticing it?
Errr, oops. Dang, sorry about that. Could have sworn I heard a bit ago that you guys were putting it in and the new site (gutenburg.org) sure looks like Greenstone.
Sorry about that. This is exactly why I usually keep my mouth shut about these types of things ;).
Jon Gorman
Probably some confusion about domain names here: gutenberg.org = gutenberg.net the old site pgcc.net = gutenberg.us = gutenberg.cc the new site mh
Michael Hart wrote:
Probably some confusion about domain names here:
gutenberg.org = gutenberg.net the old site
pgcc.net = gutenberg.us = gutenberg.cc the new site
Uh, excuse me? When did "PG2"/"PGCC"/"WEL" become the new Project Gutenberg site? -- Michael Ciesielski
On Fri, 17 Dec 2004, Michael Ciesielski wrote:
Michael Hart wrote:
Probably some confusion about domain names here:
gutenberg.org = gutenberg.net the old site
pgcc.net = gutenberg.us = gutenberg.cc the new site
Uh, excuse me?
When did "PG2"/"PGCC"/"WEL" become the new Project Gutenberg site?
This was announced many times in the Weekly Newsletter, and discussed in several listserv conversations. The current site was online for testing at least since Jun 22, the offical date of change from testing to opening was Nov 4. gutenberg.org replaced gutenberg.net as the preferred domain name for that site during the same period.
Michael Hart wrote:
When did "PG2"/"PGCC"/"WEL" become the new Project Gutenberg site?
This was announced many times in the Weekly Newsletter, and discussed in several listserv conversations.
And most everybody took exception with the "new" and "old" connotation.
The current site was online for testing at least since Jun 22, the offical date of change from testing to opening was Nov 4.
gutenberg.org replaced gutenberg.net as the preferred domain name for that site during the same period.
The two changes are completely unrelated. gutenberg.net was abandoned in favor of gutenberg.org because .org is the standard TLD for non-profits. Getting rid of multiple domains also gave us better search engine ranking. -- Marcello Perathoner webmaster@gutenberg.org
On Thu, Dec 16, 2004 at 10:34:23AM -0600, Jon Gorman wrote:
On Thu, 16 Dec 2004 17:21:46 +0100, Marcello Perathoner <marcello@perathoner.de> wrote:
Jon Gorman wrote:
I believe Greenstone (the new software behind the scenes at gutenberg.org) allows pretty precise sorting of returns on various conditions.
What? Who installed Greenstone without my noticing it?
Errr, oops. Dang, sorry about that. Could have sworn I heard a bit ago that you guys were putting it in and the new site (gutenburg.org) sure looks like Greenstone.
iBiblio runs the Greenstone search engine, which we link to. It's not bad, but takes a long time to re-index the site (and doesn't do all the filetypes), and is not updated too regularly. We link to it from the gutenberg.org/gutenberg.net pages, as well as Yahoo & Google (which, similarly, we don't run: they just index us as part of their service).
Sorry about that. This is exactly why I usually keep my mouth shut about these types of things ;).
Not at all - it's often not too clear what's "ours" (as in stuff we run) and what's not ours, without detailed reading. -- Greg
On Thu, 16 Dec 2004, Joshua Hutchinson wrote:
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.
NO ONE HAS SUGGESTED SWEEPING IT AWAY!
Again: Sweeping it under the carpet is exactly what you are promoting here.
In fact, every person that has suggested a change of some kind has advocated putting the obsolete format document somewhere accessible. Just not right out in front where an uninformed visitor will see it, click it and get frustrated. It reflects poorly on PG as a whole and turns off potential users from ever coming back.
It this were the case, lots of people would have complained by now. You are insiders. . .you have a distinctly different viewpoint.
Move the bloody thing into the OLD subdirectory. That's what the OLD subdirectory is for. Use it as such.
Again: Sweeping it under the carpet is exactly what you are promoting here.
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.
Josh
----- Original Message ----- From: "Michael Hart" <hart@pglaf.org> To: "Project Gutenberg Volunteer Discussion" <gutvol-d@lists.pglaf.org> Subject: Re: !@!Re: [gutvol-d] [Fwd: Folio files] Date: Thu, 16 Dec 2004 07:09:51 -0800 (PST)
On the one hand people complain that eBooks in general will never last, simply because those big gov't databases were kept in formats no one can read today. . .on the other hand you don't want this to be mentioned up front. . . .
None of the people arguing this case were there when we met with the President of Folio, none of them were part of doing Gibbon's "Roman Empire" . . .so please just leave it be.
Some day, when you are all gone, perhaps someone else will sweep your efforts under the carpet. . .and Google will go down as the inventor of eBooks and the first eBook library.
On Wed, 15 Dec 2004, D. Starner wrote:
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
_______________________________________________ gutvol-d mailing list gutvol-d@lists.pglaf.org http://lists.pglaf.org/listinfo.cgi/gutvol-d
_______________________________________________ gutvol-d mailing list gutvol-d@lists.pglaf.org http://lists.pglaf.org/listinfo.cgi/gutvol-d
On Thu, Dec 16, 2004 at 08:10:26AM -0800, Michael Hart wrote:
... BTW, you can still get the Folio reader with the TIME Magazing CDs which sell for $1.
I wasn't aware of this - do you have a copy? We can make sure Brewster's site archives it, and maybe even provide our own archival copy. -- Greg
On Thu, 16 Dec 2004, Greg Newby wrote:
On Thu, Dec 16, 2004 at 08:10:26AM -0800, Michael Hart wrote:
... BTW, you can still get the Folio reader with the TIME Magazing CDs which sell for $1.
I wasn't aware of this - do you have a copy? We can make sure Brewster's site archives it, and maybe even provide our own archival copy.
I have TIME, but the reader is NOT the free one.
-- Greg _______________________________________________ gutvol-d mailing list gutvol-d@lists.pglaf.org http://lists.pglaf.org/listinfo.cgi/gutvol-d
On Thu, Dec 16, 2004 at 08:54:02AM -0800, Michael Hart wrote:
On Thu, 16 Dec 2004, Greg Newby wrote:
On Thu, Dec 16, 2004 at 08:10:26AM -0800, Michael Hart wrote:
... BTW, you can still get the Folio reader with the TIME Magazing CDs which sell for $1.
I wasn't aware of this - do you have a copy? We can make sure Brewster's site archives it, and maybe even provide our own archival copy.
I have TIME, but the reader is NOT the free one.
Brewster @ TIA has a project to archive such orphaned software (copyrighted, but not being sold/owned). It's legit, & might be a good place to send this software. -- Greg
Michael Hart wrote:
Sweeping it under the carpet is exactly what you are promoting here.
Actually we are advocating greater visibility of the files in question. Current situation: if a reader who looks for Gibbon *by chance* happens to download the Folio files, she *may* realize that proprietary formats are bad. Disadvantage: more probably she will not realize where the problem is because nobody told her and just form a bad opinion of PG: "What the hell do they keep around files if nobody can read them ?" Proposed change: move the Folio files out of the catalog, write a "Hall of Shame" page explaining the problem and link to the Folio files from there. Advantage: people who don't look for Gibbon can see the "Hall of Shame" page. People actually realize the problem because it is explained to them. -- Marcello Perathoner webmaster@gutenberg.org
Michael Hart wrote:
This is exactly the reason for having a separate number, so people will NOT get the .nfo format unless they want it.
The latter is a fine goal, but it seems to me that giving a Folio file a separate etext number achieves precisely the opposite effect. If a volume is available in several formats, the easiest way to convey this fact is in a tabular listing with a "format" column. This is what the PG online catalog's 'bibrec' pages do. However, (I'm pretty sure) a bibrec page can only show data associated with one etext number. Conversely, the pages that show info for multiple etexts (e.g., search results or browse authors) do *not* convey format information. Thus, having a different etext number for a Folio version (or for any particular-format version) actually obscures the format distinction, making it *more* likely that someone will get the .nfo format when they don't want it (or plain text when they'd prefer html, or vice versa, etc). Of course, the decision for Decline & Fall was made back in 1997, before we had bibrec pages, or even much of an online catalog, I think. Perhaps it made more sense given the access and indexing methods of the day, though as far as I can tell, very little use was made of etext numbers in accessing files. (Instead, one used filenames like etext97/dfre310xx.xxx.) Anyway, the argument of people not getting unwanted formats would seem to point in the opposite direction now. Or, as Marcello put it: "The Right Thing to do is to reindex all formats (TXT, HTML, Folio) under one etext number. Then the software would sort it in a sensible way." -Michael
"Michael" == Michael Dyck <jmdyck@ibiblio.org> writes:
Michael> Or, as Marcello put it: "The Right Thing to do is to Michael> reindex all formats (TXT, HTML, Folio) under one etext Michael> number. Then the software would sort it in a sensible Michael> way." I agree, but if MH objects to the renumbering another option is to have all the formats in all the numbers. This can be done with symbolic links, so that no duplication of files occurs. We will have a duplication of bibrec records, but even choosing the wrong number you'll get the correct file anyway. And another link can go to the "Hall of shame". Carlo Traverso
participants (8)
-
Carlo Traverso -
Greg Newby -
Jon Gorman -
Joshua Hutchinson -
Marcello Perathoner -
Michael Ciesielski -
Michael Dyck -
Michael Hart