From gbnewby at pglaf.org Mon Sep 6 17:46:49 2010 From: gbnewby at pglaf.org (Greg Newby) Date: Mon, 6 Sep 2010 17:46:49 -0700 Subject: [gutvol-d] Re: posting size waiver. In-Reply-To: References: <4676F03F.30108@verizon.net> <15cfa2a50706181406x615bcf87t82d9b6dd76439753@mail.gmail.com> <20070619051253.GA13293@mail.pglaf.org> Message-ID: <20100907004649.GE18083@pglaf.org> On Mon, Sep 06, 2010 at 06:36:17PM -0400, Greg Weeks wrote: > > I thought we had this settled, but apparently not. I have two > projects over at pgdp where the PPer has given up on posting them > because the WWer refuses to take them because they are 1 page poems > out of Weird Tales. Greg, I'm sorry about this, but I was supposed to follow up with you and didn't. > The whole workflow at DP does NOT let you combine things when they > need separate clearances. Is that the only thing in the way? The idea, which I think you've heard, is to consider combining these very short items to make a larger item. Combinations could be by author, by topic, or by source. For example, perhaps combining an entire year's worth of Weird Tales items. We can certainly consider methods at the WWer phase to do such combinations, if that would help. Let me know what you think would be a good solution. I, personally, think that very short items should only be posted as a single eBook when there is a compelling reason (Robert's example of a pamphlet seems compelling, though even then I would wonder whether there are other, related pamphlets to combine). I see I basically already said this, below. What I'm not seeing is whether there is a reason (other than limitations in the DP workflow) not to combine. -- Greg > The items are: > Lycanthropus by Bolen, C. Edgar 20100108175432bolen > The Lost Temples of Xantoos by Calhoun, Howell 20100110102049calhoun > > They come out of different issues of Weird Tales. I know not who the > WWer is as I'm not actually involved in the posting step at all. > > Greg Weeks > > On Mon, 18 Jun 2007, Greg Newby wrote: > > >On Mon, Jun 18, 2007 at 05:06:59PM -0400, Robert Cicconetti wrote: > >>I definitely agree with the basic idea, although I would like to suggest > >>that the rule be rewritten altogether to allow shorter works, "complete as > >>published", as well. Pamphlets, for example, were very important in shaping > >>public opinion during the American Revolution. > >> > >>Not all were collected later, or if they were, some are under a compilation > >>copyright. > >> > >>R C > > > >The 25K is a guideline, not a fixed lower limit. I agree > >with posting smaller items when they are indeed their own > >"items." > > > >For short stories from magazines, it would be preferable > >to have the whole issue, but as Greg mentions not practical > >when only some of the stories are clearable. > > > >I'll remind the WW team that shorter items are fine, when > >these practical issues make a shorter piece difficult. > > > >BTW, one of my first PG "titles" was O Henry's "Gift > >of the Magi." That was too short for a full eBook (only a > >few pages), so Michael elected at the time to not assign > >an eBook number, but to add it to the collection. That's > >not how we'd do things today (we rely on eBook #s as a main > >identifier), but shows that flexibility is nice! > > -- Greg > > > >>On 6/18/07, Juliet Sutherland wrote: > >>> > >>>Sounds like a great idea to me. > >>> > >>>JulietS > >>> > >>>Greg Weeks wrote: > >>> > >>>>Can we get a waiver for the 25K minimum size limit for postings for the > >>>>rule 6 SF pieces? They have to be cleared separately, so it's very > >>>>difficult to aggregate them. In the case of the ASF stuff from 1959-1963 > >>>>we would run afoul of the collection copyright if we tried to aggregate > >>>by > >>>>issue anyway. > > -- > Greg Weeks > http://durendal.org:8080/greg/ From donovan at abs.net Wed Sep 8 10:20:59 2010 From: donovan at abs.net (D Garcia) Date: Wed, 8 Sep 2010 13:20:59 -0400 Subject: [gutvol-d] Re: posting size waiver. In-Reply-To: <20100907004649.GE18083@pglaf.org> References: <20100907004649.GE18083@pglaf.org> Message-ID: <201009081320.59457.donovan@abs.net> On Monday at 08:46:49PM -0500, Greg Newby wrote: >>On Mon, Sep 06, 2010 at 06:36:17PM -0400, Greg Weeks wrote: >> The whole workflow at DP does NOT let you combine things when they >> need separate clearances. >Is that the only thing in the way? > >The idea, which I think you've heard, is to consider combining >these very short items to make a larger item. Combinations could >be by author, by topic, or by source. For example, perhaps >combining an entire year's worth of Weird Tales items. >Let me know what you think would be a good solution. I, >personally, think that very short items should only be posted >as a single eBook when there is a compelling reason (Robert's >example of a pamphlet seems compelling, though even then I would >wonder whether there are other, related pamphlets to combine). > >I see I basically already said this, below. What I'm not seeing >is whether there is a reason (other than limitations in the DP >workflow) not to combine. The problem is not a "limitation" in the DP workflow: This issue arises solely out of the fact that PG refuses to post items they consider to be "too small," which is arbitrary, ridiculous and completely unnecessary. PG requires that the SF shorts in question be cleared separately for very good reasons; what possible argument is there for NOT publishing them separately, especially considering that PG (via the WWers) are almost inflexibly insistent that ordinary works with illustrations be kept as small as possible? DPs workflow is intended to faithfully reproduce works as they were originally published. While PG certainly acts as a publisher, there is no practical reason for requiring "short" works to be compiled and thus muddy the origins of the source material. The sensible and practical thing for PG to do is to do away with any minimum size requirement for postings. Items can be posted as they were published, and any desired compilations can then be created by PG without forcing arbitrary requirements on their contributors. David From grythumn at gmail.com Wed Sep 8 10:53:01 2010 From: grythumn at gmail.com (Robert Cicconetti) Date: Wed, 8 Sep 2010 13:53:01 -0400 Subject: [gutvol-d] Re: posting size waiver. In-Reply-To: <201009081320.59457.donovan@abs.net> References: <20100907004649.GE18083@pglaf.org> <201009081320.59457.donovan@abs.net> Message-ID: On Wed, Sep 8, 2010 at 1:20 PM, D Garcia wrote: > On Monday at 08:46:49PM -0500, Greg Newby wrote: > >>On Mon, Sep 06, 2010 at 06:36:17PM -0400, Greg Weeks wrote: > >> The whole workflow at DP does NOT let you combine things when they > >> need separate clearances. > > >Is that the only thing in the way? > > > >The idea, which I think you've heard, is to consider combining > >these very short items to make a larger item. Combinations could > >be by author, by topic, or by source. For example, perhaps > >combining an entire year's worth of Weird Tales items. > > >Let me know what you think would be a good solution. I, > >personally, think that very short items should only be posted > >as a single eBook when there is a compelling reason (Robert's > >example of a pamphlet seems compelling, though even then I would > >wonder whether there are other, related pamphlets to combine). > > > >I see I basically already said this, below. What I'm not seeing > >is whether there is a reason (other than limitations in the DP > >workflow) not to combine. > > The problem is not a "limitation" in the DP workflow: This issue arises > solely > out of the fact that PG refuses to post items they consider to be "too > small," > which is arbitrary, ridiculous and completely unnecessary. PG requires that > the SF shorts in question be cleared separately for very good reasons; what > possible argument is there for NOT publishing them separately, especially > considering that PG (via the WWers) are almost inflexibly insistent that > ordinary works with illustrations be kept as small as possible? > > DPs workflow is intended to faithfully reproduce works as they were > originally > published. While PG certainly acts as a publisher, there is no practical > reason for requiring "short" works to be compiled and thus muddy the > origins > of the source material. > > The sensible and practical thing for PG to do is to do away with any > minimum > size requirement for postings. Items can be posted as they were published, > and > any desired compilations can then be created by PG without forcing > arbitrary > requirements on their contributors. > > I think I can see the reason for the original policy... PG doesn't want to publish incomplete works... say, pages 10-30, or (more recently) the first X chapters of a book. Or for poetry... have someone reduce a collection of poetry into 250 separate works. Or pick and chose 20 of the 250 for posting. The difference between the general policy and the Rule 6 shorts is, I think, as follows: 1) We're forced to select particular elements from each published book/magazine/whatever because of copyright requirements, 2) These types of publications are generally composed of a number of separate, unrelated works by different authors, 3) Where a particular work is spread across multiple issues, they get combined to reform a complete story, or sat upon until we can get all the issues in question, 4) Much of the material in question is ephemeral, and difficult and/or expensive to find complete sets. Most of the stuff I purchase off of ebay is yellowed and somewhat brittle, and much the worse for the wear after I remove the staples and scan it, 5) The published works are of highly variable length, from full length novels to 4 line poems. Since we're already breaking up the old published units, and sometimes recombining them, sometimes adding new material from an existing source as further research is done, and almost ALWAYS doing them out of order, it doesn't make sense to me (and, I think, to others processing this material for DP/PG) to form arbitrary collections that will have to be constantly reedited as new material is found/completed; or worse, make the material difficult to find by putting them into small unrelated groups. Actually, I can think of another similar case where we break up existing works without qualms; a novel (usually short) published with a novella or short stories at the end, generally by different authors and not mentioned at all in the opening material of the main work, primarily (I think) done by publishers to pad the book to marketable length (possibly as advertising for new authors, but many of the ones I've seen were by already established authors.) R C -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Bowerbird at aol.com Sun Sep 12 14:23:27 2010 From: Bowerbird at aol.com (Bowerbird at aol.com) Date: Sun, 12 Sep 2010 17:23:27 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [gutvol-d] record and release free music without copyrights Message-ID: some of you might know about kickstarter, which is a website where creative entities can solicit -- and receive! -- funding from the public. it's very cool. there's a project there now -- one which has already attained its goal, but to which you can still contribute if you'd like -- where music which is in the public-domain will be newly recorded and released at no cost. > http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/Musopen/record-and-release-free-music-without-copyrights if you're a fan of classical music, this is definitely worth checking out... -bowerbird -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From gbnewby at pglaf.org Tue Sep 14 11:12:09 2010 From: gbnewby at pglaf.org (Greg Newby) Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2010 11:12:09 -0700 Subject: [gutvol-d] Re: posting size waiver. In-Reply-To: References: <4676F03F.30108@verizon.net> <15cfa2a50706181406x615bcf87t82d9b6dd76439753@mail.gmail.com> <20070619051253.GA13293@mail.pglaf.org> Message-ID: <20100914181209.GA15030@pglaf.org> On Mon, Sep 06, 2010 at 06:36:17PM -0400, Greg Weeks wrote: > > I thought we had this settled, but apparently not. I have two > projects over at pgdp where the PPer has given up on posting them > because the WWer refuses to take them because they are 1 page poems > out of Weird Tales. Greg W., others: Thanks for your input on this. It's fine for short items from magazines to be posted as stand-alone eBooks in the Gutenberg collection. If anything is held up in the process, drop me a note and I'll see what's going on. The current uncertainty was produced, at least partially, because I had volunteered to see whether some sort of combination is deemed reasonable or desirable by the submitter. If it's not (and your message is that it is not), then of course we'll post the poems or other short items separately. I do still think it's useful and appropriate to combine items themactically, when it is practical. "Poetry Selections from Galaxy 1955-1956" seems perfectly acceptable to me, and would have the benefit of putting something that is more book- or magazine-length in a reader's hands, rather than just a single short poem. But this is guidance, not dictate. I'm not sure which items might be held, or by whom. But the WWers involved perhaps do. I hope we can get any pending items moving immediately. Sorry for the delay with these. -- Greg > The whole workflow at DP does NOT let you combine things when they > need separate clearances. > > The items are: > Lycanthropus by Bolen, C. Edgar 20100108175432bolen > The Lost Temples of Xantoos by Calhoun, Howell 20100110102049calhoun > > They come out of different issues of Weird Tales. I know not who the > WWer is as I'm not actually involved in the posting step at all. > > Greg Weeks > > On Mon, 18 Jun 2007, Greg Newby wrote: > > >On Mon, Jun 18, 2007 at 05:06:59PM -0400, Robert Cicconetti wrote: > >>I definitely agree with the basic idea, although I would like to suggest > >>that the rule be rewritten altogether to allow shorter works, "complete as > >>published", as well. Pamphlets, for example, were very important in shaping > >>public opinion during the American Revolution. > >> > >>Not all were collected later, or if they were, some are under a compilation > >>copyright. > >> > >>R C > > > >The 25K is a guideline, not a fixed lower limit. I agree > >with posting smaller items when they are indeed their own > >"items." > > > >For short stories from magazines, it would be preferable > >to have the whole issue, but as Greg mentions not practical > >when only some of the stories are clearable. > > > >I'll remind the WW team that shorter items are fine, when > >these practical issues make a shorter piece difficult. > > > >BTW, one of my first PG "titles" was O Henry's "Gift > >of the Magi." That was too short for a full eBook (only a > >few pages), so Michael elected at the time to not assign > >an eBook number, but to add it to the collection. That's > >not how we'd do things today (we rely on eBook #s as a main > >identifier), but shows that flexibility is nice! > > -- Greg > > > >>On 6/18/07, Juliet Sutherland wrote: > >>> > >>>Sounds like a great idea to me. > >>> > >>>JulietS > >>> > >>>Greg Weeks wrote: > >>> > >>>>Can we get a waiver for the 25K minimum size limit for postings for the > >>>>rule 6 SF pieces? They have to be cleared separately, so it's very > >>>>difficult to aggregate them. In the case of the ASF stuff from 1959-1963 > >>>>we would run afoul of the collection copyright if we tried to aggregate > >>>by > >>>>issue anyway. > > -- > Greg Weeks > http://durendal.org:8080/greg/ From ajhaines at shaw.ca Tue Sep 14 11:52:29 2010 From: ajhaines at shaw.ca (Al Haines) Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2010 11:52:29 -0700 Subject: [gutvol-d] Re: posting size waiver. In-Reply-To: <20100914181209.GA15030@pglaf.org> Message-ID: I have both of the items in question: "Lost Temples of Xantoos" (900 chars) and "Lycanthropus" (800 chars). (I'm not aware of any other unposted tiny SciFi submissions.) I want to emphasize that I did not "refuse to take them". My position at the time was that because they were far below PG's stated preference that submissions should be 25K or greater, unless they were sufficiently unique as to merit being posted on their own, they could/should be combined into a single text, and I wanted guidance from Greg as to whether tiny submissions such as these were acceptable. (I believe Ritu also contacted Greg, but I don't know what transpired with that.) Since it's now been deemed that they're acceptable, I'll post them. Al > -----Original Message----- > From: gutvol-d-bounces at lists.pglaf.org > [mailto:gutvol-d-bounces at lists.pglaf.org] On Behalf Of Greg Newby > Sent: Tuesday, September 14, 2010 11:12 AM > To: Project Gutenberg Volunteer Discussion > Cc: pgww at lists.pglaf.org > Subject: [gutvol-d] Re: posting size waiver. > > > On Mon, Sep 06, 2010 at 06:36:17PM -0400, Greg Weeks wrote: > > > > I thought we had this settled, but apparently not. I have two > > projects over at pgdp where the PPer has given up on posting them > > because the WWer refuses to take them because they are 1 page poems > > out of Weird Tales. > > Greg W., others: > > Thanks for your input on this. It's fine for short items > from magazines > to be posted as stand-alone eBooks in the Gutenberg collection. If > anything is held up in the process, drop me a note and I'll see what's > going on. > > The current uncertainty was produced, at least partially, > because I had > volunteered to see whether some sort of combination is deemed > reasonable > or desirable by the submitter. If it's not (and your message > is that it > is not), then of course we'll post the poems or other short items > separately. > > I do still think it's useful and appropriate to combine items > themactically, when it is practical. "Poetry Selections from Galaxy > 1955-1956" seems perfectly acceptable to me, and would have > the benefit > of putting something that is more book- or magazine-length in > a reader's > hands, rather than just a single short poem. But this is > guidance, not > dictate. > > I'm not sure which items might be held, or by whom. But the WWers > involved perhaps do. I hope we can get any pending items moving > immediately. Sorry for the delay with these. > > -- Greg > > > > The whole workflow at DP does NOT let you combine things when they > > need separate clearances. > > > > The items are: > > Lycanthropus by Bolen, C. Edgar 20100108175432bolen > > The Lost Temples of Xantoos by Calhoun, Howell 20100110102049calhoun > > > > They come out of different issues of Weird Tales. I know not who the > > WWer is as I'm not actually involved in the posting step at all. > > > > Greg Weeks > > > > On Mon, 18 Jun 2007, Greg Newby wrote: > > > > >On Mon, Jun 18, 2007 at 05:06:59PM -0400, Robert Cicconetti wrote: > > >>I definitely agree with the basic idea, although I would > like to suggest > > >>that the rule be rewritten altogether to allow shorter > works, "complete as > > >>published", as well. Pamphlets, for example, were very > important in shaping > > >>public opinion during the American Revolution. > > >> > > >>Not all were collected later, or if they were, some are > under a compilation > > >>copyright. > > >> > > >>R C > > > > > >The 25K is a guideline, not a fixed lower limit. I agree > > >with posting smaller items when they are indeed their own > > >"items." > > > > > >For short stories from magazines, it would be preferable > > >to have the whole issue, but as Greg mentions not practical > > >when only some of the stories are clearable. > > > > > >I'll remind the WW team that shorter items are fine, when > > >these practical issues make a shorter piece difficult. > > > > > >BTW, one of my first PG "titles" was O Henry's "Gift > > >of the Magi." That was too short for a full eBook (only a > > >few pages), so Michael elected at the time to not assign > > >an eBook number, but to add it to the collection. That's > > >not how we'd do things today (we rely on eBook #s as a main > > >identifier), but shows that flexibility is nice! > > > -- Greg > > > > > >>On 6/18/07, Juliet Sutherland wrote: > > >>> > > >>>Sounds like a great idea to me. > > >>> > > >>>JulietS > > >>> > > >>>Greg Weeks wrote: > > >>> > > >>>>Can we get a waiver for the 25K minimum size limit for > postings for the > > >>>>rule 6 SF pieces? They have to be cleared separately, > so it's very > > >>>>difficult to aggregate them. In the case of the ASF > stuff from 1959-1963 > > >>>>we would run afoul of the collection copyright if we > tried to aggregate > > >>>by > > >>>>issue anyway. > > > > -- > > Greg Weeks > > http://durendal.org:8080/greg/ > _______________________________________________ > gutvol-d mailing list > gutvol-d at lists.pglaf.org > http://lists.pglaf.org/mailman/listinfo/gutvol-d > From sly at victoria.tc.ca Tue Sep 14 13:42:30 2010 From: sly at victoria.tc.ca (Andrew Sly) Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2010 13:42:30 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [gutvol-d] Re: posting size waiver. In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: For what it's worth, my own opinion is that something of that type might find a more appropriate home on Wikisource. See the category: http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Category:Poems Just my two cents, Andrew On Tue, 14 Sep 2010, Al Haines wrote: > I have both of the items in question: "Lost Temples of Xantoos" (900 > chars) and "Lycanthropus" (800 chars). (I'm not aware of any other > unposted tiny SciFi submissions.) > > I want to emphasize that I did not "refuse to take them". My position > at the time was that because they were far below PG's stated > preference that submissions should be 25K or greater, unless they were > sufficiently unique as to merit being posted on their own, they > could/should be combined into a single text, and I wanted guidance > from Greg as to whether tiny submissions such as these were > acceptable. (I believe Ritu also contacted Greg, but I don't know > what transpired with that.) > > Since it's now been deemed that they're acceptable, I'll post them. > From Bowerbird at aol.com Wed Sep 15 13:04:27 2010 From: Bowerbird at aol.com (Bowerbird at aol.com) Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2010 16:04:27 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [gutvol-d] kindle numbers and ipad numbers Message-ID: i think the world has now pretty much figured out that the kindle "versus" the ipad is apple "versus" orange -- both can survive and thrive, each off in their own niche. but the _size_ of the niches is still an interesting topic, especially as we move along the present into the future. so here's an interesting set of charts: > http://tech.fortune.cnn.com/2010/09/13/the-apple-branded-campus/ in the "e-reader/tablet" sphere, the piechart says that 48% of college students brought a kindle to school and 48% brought an ipad. (the other 4% had a sony reader.) so it looks like, at this point in time, for college students, the ipad and the kindle have reached some form of parity. -bowerbird -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From schultzk at uni-trier.de Wed Sep 15 15:16:20 2010 From: schultzk at uni-trier.de (Keith J. Schultz) Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2010 00:16:20 +0200 Subject: [gutvol-d] Re: kindle numbers and ipad numbers[OT] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4D29AFEC-F715-45B1-9FEB-C3FEE6896B98@uni-trier.de> I hate to say this, but I doubt very much this survey is very representative. 212 respondents from 7 schools. What faculties? How where they chosen? Howmany did not respond? Where there respondent that did not have an e-reader? Did any have more than one? These figures do not feel realistic! regards Keith. Am 15.09.2010 um 22:04 schrieb Bowerbird at aol.com: > i think the world has now pretty much figured out that > the kindle "versus" the ipad is apple "versus" orange -- > both can survive and thrive, each off in their own niche. > > but the _size_ of the niches is still an interesting topic, > especially as we move along the present into the future. > > so here's an interesting set of charts: > > http://tech.fortune.cnn.com/2010/09/13/the-apple-branded-campus/ > > in the "e-reader/tablet" sphere, the piechart says that > 48% of college students brought a kindle to school and > 48% brought an ipad. (the other 4% had a sony reader.) > > so it looks like, at this point in time, for college students, > the ipad and the kindle have reached some form of parity. > > -bowerbird > _______________________________________________ > gutvol-d mailing list > gutvol-d at lists.pglaf.org > http://lists.pglaf.org/mailman/listinfo/gutvol-d -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Bowerbird at aol.com Wed Sep 15 18:47:27 2010 From: Bowerbird at aol.com (Bowerbird at aol.com) Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2010 21:47:27 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [gutvol-d] Re: kindle numbers and ipad numbers Message-ID: <1972ef.14eaecdd.39c2d12f@aol.com> keith said: > These figures do not feel realistic! i cannot vouch for their accuracy... or lack of it... if you see better data, please feel free to share it. -bowerbird -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From kevin.pulliam at gmail.com Wed Sep 15 19:55:07 2010 From: kevin.pulliam at gmail.com (Kevin Pulliam) Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2010 21:55:07 -0500 Subject: [gutvol-d] Re: kindle numbers and ipad numbers In-Reply-To: <1972ef.14eaecdd.39c2d12f@aol.com> References: <1972ef.14eaecdd.39c2d12f@aol.com> Message-ID: I think you both need to re-read the chart/article. The statistic was only for 'Those that brought an ereader'... that's why it seems like 100% market penetration. "Apple's iPad and Amazon's Kindle each held a 48% share among those that brought an e- reader / tablet to school, Sony's e-reader held a 4% share." Sounds like 25 people out of 212 brought an tablet like device to the dorms with them and admitted it during freshmen orientation. 12 had Kindles, 12 had Ipads, and 1 had a sony reader, hardly a plateau of achievement. On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 8:47 PM, wrote: > keith said: >>?? These figures do not feel realistic! > > i cannot vouch for their accuracy...? or lack of it... > > if you see better data, please feel free to share it. > > -bowerbird > > _______________________________________________ > gutvol-d mailing list > gutvol-d at lists.pglaf.org > http://lists.pglaf.org/mailman/listinfo/gutvol-d > > From Bowerbird at aol.com Thu Sep 16 00:24:55 2010 From: Bowerbird at aol.com (Bowerbird at aol.com) Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2010 03:24:55 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [gutvol-d] Re: kindle numbers and ipad numbers Message-ID: <1a0792.2381f1a8.39c32047@aol.com> kevin said: > I think you both need to re-read the chart/article. what makes you think i had any trouble understanding the data? likewise, i felt keith grasped the numbers just fine. he was merely saying that the sample was small, and perhaps not representative, good points, both, the second of which had not been addressed... (the first is acknowledged right off the bat in the .cnn article.) > Sounds like 25 people out of 212 brought > an tablet like device to the dorms with them > and admitted it during freshmen orientation.? > 12 had Kindles, 12 had Ipads, and 1 had a sony reader, > hardly a plateau of achievement. hard numbers were not given, so that's a guess, but i would not question it, given the round nature of the percentages provided. but we will have to disagree if this is "a plateau of achievement"; 25 out of 212, if it is a representative number, would be 11.8%... considering the ipad is under 6 months out of the starting gate, and hasn't had its first holiday season yet, 5.4% is a healthy rate. and since the kindle skews old, 5.4% of college freshmen is great. and the fact that _each_ of the machines is doing well _alongside_ the _other_ should give cheer to all of us oldtimers who have been waiting for e-books to punch through for several _decades_ now... and the "bottom line" is that both apple and amazon say they are quite happy with the success of their products, and they back up the statements with cold hard cash advertising the crap out of 'em. they can't match all the political ads (at least not here in california, where meg whitman is spending a fortune), but they pass viagra... -bowerbird -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From schultzk at uni-trier.de Thu Sep 16 03:28:56 2010 From: schultzk at uni-trier.de (Keith J. Schultz) Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2010 12:28:56 +0200 Subject: [gutvol-d] Re: kindle numbers and ipad numbers[OT] In-Reply-To: References: <1972ef.14eaecdd.39c2d12f@aol.com> Message-ID: <14978690-39B9-438E-BF4D-3FCF584697D3@uni-trier.de> Well I did reread the article and the author is quoting the statistics on another, Daniel Ernst. So what was actually gather is not apparent. Furthermore, using 212 as pole for all US freshmen is statistically irrelevant. You seen to have checked on the original source and from the the numbers below we can forget about any statement which can be made towards reality. point proved. regards Keith Am 16.09.2010 um 04:55 schrieb Kevin Pulliam: > I think you both need to re-read the chart/article. > > The statistic was only for 'Those that brought an ereader'... that's > why it seems like 100% market penetration. > > "Apple's iPad and Amazon's Kindle each held a 48% share among those > that brought an e- reader / tablet to school, Sony's e-reader held a > 4% share." > > Sounds like 25 people out of 212 brought an tablet like device to the > dorms with them and admitted it during freshmen orientation. 12 had > Kindles, 12 had Ipads, and 1 had a sony reader, hardly a plateau of > achievement. > > > > > On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 8:47 PM, wrote: >> keith said: >>> These figures do not feel realistic! >> >> i cannot vouch for their accuracy... or lack of it... >> >> if you see better data, please feel free to share it. >> >> -bowerbird >> >> _______________________________________________ >> gutvol-d mailing list >> gutvol-d at lists.pglaf.org >> http://lists.pglaf.org/mailman/listinfo/gutvol-d >> >> > _______________________________________________ > gutvol-d mailing list > gutvol-d at lists.pglaf.org > http://lists.pglaf.org/mailman/listinfo/gutvol-d From Bowerbird at aol.com Thu Sep 16 12:27:47 2010 From: Bowerbird at aol.com (Bowerbird at aol.com) Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2010 15:27:47 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [gutvol-d] Re: kindle numbers and ipad numbers[OT] Message-ID: <21cba.1d94f558.39c3c9b3@aol.com> keith said: > statistically irrelevant. ... > we can forget about any statement > which can be made towards reality. ... > point proved. and i repeat: do you have any better numbers? have you done a survey -- at 3 different yearly intervals -- which gives you any evidence to challenge the results there? or is it only other people who have to back up what they say? there are actual numbers which represent the factual reality. a percentage of college freshman have a kindle, and an ipad. i certainly don't claim to know the numbers; but they do exist. and 5.4% certainly sounds like a reasonable estimate -- to me. now, if you wanna dispute that number, that's just fine with me. but where is _your_ evidence? hell, it would be nice if you simply had the balls to _declare_ whether you thought their number was too low or too high, even if you cannot muster any actual evidence of your own... i mean, it's not as if _willfull_blindness_ makes you "superior"... -bowerbird -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jimad at msn.com Thu Sep 16 15:34:37 2010 From: jimad at msn.com (Jim Adcock) Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2010 15:34:37 -0700 Subject: [gutvol-d] Re: kindle numbers and ipad numbers In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Walt Mossberg of WSJ just had a review of the three major ebook reader apps for the iPad: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703743504575493883578854158.ht ml From schultzk at uni-trier.de Fri Sep 17 02:57:03 2010 From: schultzk at uni-trier.de (Keith J. Schultz) Date: Fri, 17 Sep 2010 11:57:03 +0200 Subject: [gutvol-d] Re: kindle numbers and ipad numbers[OT] In-Reply-To: <21cba.1d94f558.39c3c9b3@aol.com> References: <21cba.1d94f558.39c3c9b3@aol.com> Message-ID: Hi Bowerbird, Though cynical, yet to the point take a class in statistics and you might understand. I do not doubt that the numbers are fact. I doubt that from this sample you can project these numbers to all campuses in in US! regards Keith. Am 16.09.2010 um 21:27 schrieb Bowerbird at aol.com: > keith said: > > statistically irrelevant. > ... > > we can forget about any statement > > which can be made towards reality. > ... > > point proved. > > and i repeat: do you have any better numbers? > > have you done a survey -- at 3 different yearly intervals -- > which gives you any evidence to challenge the results there? > > or is it only other people who have to back up what they say? > > there are actual numbers which represent the factual reality. > a percentage of college freshman have a kindle, and an ipad. > > i certainly don't claim to know the numbers; but they do exist. > and 5.4% certainly sounds like a reasonable estimate -- to me. > > now, if you wanna dispute that number, that's just fine with me. > but where is _your_ evidence? > > hell, it would be nice if you simply had the balls to _declare_ > whether you thought their number was too low or too high, > even if you cannot muster any actual evidence of your own... > > i mean, it's not as if _willfull_blindness_ makes you "superior"... > > -bowerbird > _______________________________________________ > gutvol-d mailing list > gutvol-d at lists.pglaf.org > http://lists.pglaf.org/mailman/listinfo/gutvol-d -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Bowerbird at aol.com Fri Sep 17 12:59:41 2010 From: Bowerbird at aol.com (Bowerbird at aol.com) Date: Fri, 17 Sep 2010 15:59:41 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [gutvol-d] Re: kindle numbers and ipad numbers[OT] Message-ID: <208a4c.4af60c50.39c522ad@aol.com> keith said: > take a class in statistics and you might understand. keith, i've taken classes in statistics. at the ph.d. level. where superficial reactions such as "this _might_ not be representative of the population at large" must be supported with an actual argument. do you have one of those? or are you just trying to _sound_ smart? -bowerbird -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From zbaxter at gmail.com Fri Sep 17 13:03:44 2010 From: zbaxter at gmail.com (Zara Baxter) Date: Sat, 18 Sep 2010 06:03:44 +1000 Subject: [gutvol-d] Re: kindle numbers and ipad numbers[OT] In-Reply-To: <208a4c.4af60c50.39c522ad@aol.com> References: <208a4c.4af60c50.39c522ad@aol.com> Message-ID: I've only taken undergrad statistics, but that actually made me laugh out loud. (Also, the study itself did not in any way suggest that this was representative of the population at large, nor even, as per Keith's comment, of the population of _campuses_ at large in the _US_. So, er ... What? ) Okay, that's my sole comment for the year on this mailing list. Back to lurking. On Sat, Sep 18, 2010 at 5:59 AM, wrote: > keith said: >>?? take a class in statistics and you might understand. > > keith, i've taken classes in statistics. > > at the ph.d. level. > > where superficial reactions such as > "this _might_ not be representative > of the population at large" must be > supported with an actual argument. > > do you have one of those? > > or are you just trying to _sound_ smart? > > -bowerbird > > _______________________________________________ > gutvol-d mailing list > gutvol-d at lists.pglaf.org > http://lists.pglaf.org/mailman/listinfo/gutvol-d > > From schultzk at uni-trier.de Tue Sep 21 00:19:16 2010 From: schultzk at uni-trier.de (Keith J. Schultz) Date: Tue, 21 Sep 2010 09:19:16 +0200 Subject: [gutvol-d] Re: kindle numbers and ipad numbers[OT] In-Reply-To: <208a4c.4af60c50.39c522ad@aol.com> References: <208a4c.4af60c50.39c522ad@aol.com> Message-ID: <26B50655-D77A-47E6-AFD4-706689F18652@uni-trier.de> O.K. To wrap this up. because it does not thematically belong here. 1) From a statistical/scientific stand point this this survey is irrelevant due to it small sample size. Simple scientific fact no more proof needed. - so beware of any statements referring to this data. 2) I stated in my another post that other information would be helpful in understanding the true trend. eg how many have more than one brand reader; for which purpose did they buy their device/s; which faculties do the students belong; was their decision based on availability books. - the iPad is a multi-purpose device the Kindle and Sony are not though they all can be used as readers. - this other information would be helpful in understanding where the trend is going 3) I am not interested in disputing or disproving the general statement that Kindle and the iPad are the most popular, which I can accept, but I doubt that there percentages are that bias. - I am not the line of work where I would gather the information needed to underline my gut feeling. Yet, common sense would dictate that a truly scientific survey would prove me right. - You do not need a crystal ball to make the statements mentioned in the stated article, nor a purely ad-hoc gathered survey. 4) Yes, there was a survey,but the only sound statements that can be made from these facts are that at the 7 schools where the so called survey was taken that so and so many that ... . To suggest that this is representative or actually useful is rediculous. - If any student offered such lousy data and hypotheses from such data, any professor would give a failing grade. C'mon Bowerbird. 25 Students(somebody mentioned this in another post) with e-readers can not sound data for statistical analysis. Argument proven. regards Keith. P.S. Please excuse this OT debate. Please beware to statictics that you have not forged your as Churchhill would have said. Am 17.09.2010 um 21:59 schrieb Bowerbird at aol.com: > keith said: > > take a class in statistics and you might understand. > > keith, i've taken classes in statistics. > > at the ph.d. level. > > where superficial reactions such as > "this _might_ not be representative > of the population at large" must be > supported with an actual argument. > > do you have one of those? > > or are you just trying to _sound_ smart? > > -bowerbird > _______________________________________________ > gutvol-d mailing list > gutvol-d at lists.pglaf.org > http://lists.pglaf.org/mailman/listinfo/gutvol-d -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Bowerbird at aol.com Tue Sep 21 04:02:01 2010 From: Bowerbird at aol.com (Bowerbird at aol.com) Date: Tue, 21 Sep 2010 07:02:01 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [gutvol-d] Re: kindle numbers and ipad numbers[OT] Message-ID: <8e617.62eb96c0.39c9eaa9@aol.com> keith- we're way past the point of being interesting to the lurkers. -bowerbird -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Bowerbird at aol.com Tue Sep 21 15:11:31 2010 From: Bowerbird at aol.com (Bowerbird at aol.com) Date: Tue, 21 Sep 2010 18:11:31 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [gutvol-d] bus-drivers and kindles Message-ID: <12cea4.2cc487a7.39ca8793@aol.com> n.b.c. news reported that a bus-driver in portland just couldn't stop reading an e-book on his kindle: > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hRbYOUfFMuM& the portland trimet stresses that this was an isolated event, and is not statistically representative of bus-drivers at large. -bowerbird -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Bowerbird at aol.com Tue Sep 21 16:39:24 2010 From: Bowerbird at aol.com (Bowerbird at aol.com) Date: Tue, 21 Sep 2010 19:39:24 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [gutvol-d] kindle appeals to brunettes and blondes Message-ID: <7302d.3ef8c493.39ca9c2c@aol.com> here's the newest kindle commercial: > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lmo9xmLGKlI this one features a blond, in the park, with no dialog. (only 306 views as of now, but already 24 comments.) the last one had a brunette, at a hotel pool, with the classic line "i actually paid more for these sunglasses." > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V3m_FQcI-2w of course, this might not be statistically representative of the number of blondes and brunettes with kindles... kindle has tons of money for commercials, thanks to the agency model. boy, were those publishers stupid! -bowerbird p.s. my favoritest kindle commercial of all was #2: > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PERiTMZ626M love the song! -- "stole my heart" by little and ashley. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From schultzk at uni-trier.de Wed Sep 22 00:20:25 2010 From: schultzk at uni-trier.de (Keith J. Schultz) Date: Wed, 22 Sep 2010 09:20:25 +0200 Subject: [gutvol-d] Re: bus-drivers and kindles In-Reply-To: <12cea4.2cc487a7.39ca8793@aol.com> References: <12cea4.2cc487a7.39ca8793@aol.com> Message-ID: <6A602E59-5F34-467C-8A8D-64005725907B@uni-trier.de> Though a isolated event, we should think about starting an initiative banning Kindle while driving!! At least the Apple reader do not do things like this !!! ;-)) And just to keep thing PG relevant maybe we should put a warning to the PG Header that: It is dangerous to read and drive. Please refrain from reading while driving. You might be distract and have an accident. Read safely. regards Keith. Am 22.09.2010 um 00:11 schrieb Bowerbird at aol.com: > n.b.c. news reported that a bus-driver in portland > just couldn't stop reading an e-book on his kindle: > > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hRbYOUfFMuM& > > the portland trimet stresses that this was an isolated event, > and is not statistically representative of bus-drivers at large. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From schultzk at uni-trier.de Wed Sep 22 00:48:33 2010 From: schultzk at uni-trier.de (Keith J. Schultz) Date: Wed, 22 Sep 2010 09:48:33 +0200 Subject: [gutvol-d] Re: kindle appeals to brunettes and blondes In-Reply-To: <7302d.3ef8c493.39ca9c2c@aol.com> References: <7302d.3ef8c493.39ca9c2c@aol.com> Message-ID: <94DF74E1-ABC7-43A8-BB6E-DE84B1D36553@uni-trier.de> O.Kehh! I taking the bait, for what it is not worth! ;-)) So I better get over to the library and find some Romances and erotic fantasy books that are out of copyright. We have to get those blonds and brunettes interested in PG. Now, on a more serious note. What do these commericial have to do with PG! I can understand your post about the use of e-readers by freshmen, because of the e-reader war here. Another thing comes to mind is that with the features of of iBooks PG could produce Books with an audio track or make it completely video. That way we could, also, add all these nice adds to to the PG library. regards Keith Am 22.09.2010 um 01:39 schrieb Bowerbird at aol.com: > here's the newest kindle commercial: > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lmo9xmLGKlI > > this one features a blond, in the park, with no dialog. > (only 306 views as of now, but already 24 comments.) > > the last one had a brunette, at a hotel pool, with the > classic line "i actually paid more for these sunglasses." > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V3m_FQcI-2w > > of course, this might not be statistically representative > of the number of blondes and brunettes with kindles... > > kindle has tons of money for commercials, thanks to > the agency model. boy, were those publishers stupid! > > -bowerbird > > p.s. my favoritest kindle commercial of all was #2: > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PERiTMZ626M > love the song! -- "stole my heart" by little and ashley. > _______________________________________________ > gutvol-d mailing list > gutvol-d at lists.pglaf.org > http://lists.pglaf.org/mailman/listinfo/gutvol-d -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From schultzk at uni-trier.de Wed Sep 22 01:35:21 2010 From: schultzk at uni-trier.de (Keith J. Schultz) Date: Wed, 22 Sep 2010 10:35:21 +0200 Subject: [gutvol-d] e-reader for Mac [OT] Message-ID: <0B6BFD77-CD8D-453C-A410-4E442C8F1462@uni-trier.de> Hi All, Anyone know of a good e-reader for the Mac? I have Stanza, but it does not seem to display very thing and seems to display things that should not show up. I have calibre, but it has problems with word spacing and you can change the font. Adobe Digital Editions displays the best and correctly, but I can not change the font and I do like their interface. I had loaded Kindle for MacOSX, but they want to have an account and since I do not have a Kindle or will be getting one that is a no-brainer. I am interested in reader on a Laptop. I do not have a dedicated e-reader or iPad. I may have to live with the quirks or continue to format the text in a word processor or use PDF. Yet, I somebody could suggest something else that would be nice. regards Keith From Bowerbird at aol.com Wed Sep 22 01:45:46 2010 From: Bowerbird at aol.com (Bowerbird at aol.com) Date: Wed, 22 Sep 2010 04:45:46 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [gutvol-d] Re: kindle appeals to brunettes and blondes Message-ID: <1424c8.582e63eb.39cb1c3a@aol.com> keith said: > What do these commericial have to do?with PG! they're helping us break down the bars of ignorance and illiteracy! -bowerbird -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Bowerbird at aol.com Wed Sep 22 01:50:20 2010 From: Bowerbird at aol.com (Bowerbird at aol.com) Date: Wed, 22 Sep 2010 04:50:20 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [gutvol-d] Re: e-reader for Mac [OT] Message-ID: <1425e7.649dda46.39cb1d4c@aol.com> keith said: > I had loaded Kindle for MacOSX, > but they want to have an account > and since I do not have a Kindle > or will be getting one > that is a no-brainer. you can get an account without owning a kindle. i'm not sure, but i don't think you even need to give them a credit-card. but of course their viewer won't display .epub... you could also try the kobo, or the nook viewers, depending on how masochistic you are feeling... -bowerbird -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From schultzk at uni-trier.de Wed Sep 22 01:54:55 2010 From: schultzk at uni-trier.de (Keith J. Schultz) Date: Wed, 22 Sep 2010 10:54:55 +0200 Subject: [gutvol-d] Re: e-reader for Mac [OT] In-Reply-To: <1425e7.649dda46.39cb1d4c@aol.com> References: <1425e7.649dda46.39cb1d4c@aol.com> Message-ID: <0196DE46-63CD-4003-93E2-40348DED586C@uni-trier.de> Am 22.09.2010 um 10:50 schrieb Bowerbird at aol.com: > keith said: > > I had loaded Kindle for MacOSX, > > but they want to have an account > > and since I do not have a Kindle > > or will be getting one > > that is a no-brainer. > > you can get an account without owning a kindle. > > i'm not sure, but i don't think you even need to > give them a credit-card. I know this, but I do not like software that requires me to register to use their software with my own files. Call me paranoid. > > but of course their viewer won't display .epub... Me know. > > you could also try the kobo, or the nook viewers, > depending on how masochistic you are feeling... Will check them out. thanx. regards Keith. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From schultzk at uni-trier.de Wed Sep 22 02:06:15 2010 From: schultzk at uni-trier.de (Keith J. Schultz) Date: Wed, 22 Sep 2010 11:06:15 +0200 Subject: [gutvol-d] Re: e-reader for Mac [OT] In-Reply-To: <1425e7.649dda46.39cb1d4c@aol.com> References: <1425e7.649dda46.39cb1d4c@aol.com> Message-ID: Hi Again, Am 22.09.2010 um 10:50 schrieb Bowerbird at aol.com: > you could also try the kobo, or the nook viewers, > depending on how masochistic you are feeling... The do seem to software just for the MAC only in combination with the reader. I am just looking for a reader on the Mac. No plans for getting a reader. Maybe an iPad next year, depends on how they soup it up. Hoping though Apple will bring out iBooks for MacOSX. I guess I will live with what I got for now. Thanks anyway. regards Keith. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jimad at msn.com Thu Sep 23 11:19:30 2010 From: jimad at msn.com (Jim Adcock) Date: Thu, 23 Sep 2010 11:19:30 -0700 Subject: [gutvol-d] Re: e-reader for Mac [OT] In-Reply-To: References: <1425e7.649dda46.39cb1d4c@aol.com> Message-ID: >I am just looking for a reader on the Mac. No plans for getting a reader. Both the B&N "nook" and the Amazon "Kindle" make competent ereader software for Mac/PC. Both require some amount of "account setup." The Kindle version I believe requires credit card info. The Nook version I think does not. Neither is particularly "tied" to the hardware ebook reader that each company sells, name aside. The Apple software tends to be more onerous, in terms of how "tied" their software is, IMHO. Kindle is oriented towards MOBI files, Nook is oriented towards EPUB files. Suggest you set aside your fears about having to set up an account long enough to check out the software and see if either of them actually "works" for you or not. And/or compare to the Apple software, again if you can set aside your "account setup" fears. From Bowerbird at aol.com Fri Sep 24 02:15:13 2010 From: Bowerbird at aol.com (Bowerbird at aol.com) Date: Fri, 24 Sep 2010 05:15:13 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [gutvol-d] let's prevent hijacking of public-domain books Message-ID: <43e99.5e6767f8.39cdc620@aol.com> techdirt has an interesting blog entry up: > http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100922/03303211105/google-asking-for-help-in-making-sure-public-domain-books-are-recognized-as-public-domain.sht ml they point to a google forum where a google employee (sofiaf) has asked for instances where public-domain books are not in full-view, because some entity has claimed some kind of "copyright" on them... the google thread is here: > http://www.google.com/support/forum/p/books/thread?tid=7e2cfafbad4c9065 in both places, i posted this comment: > sofia- > > i'm so glad google is finally addressing this issue! ?thank you! > > but let us not be disingenuous, ok? ?the?vast majority of books > that are being hijacked from the public-domain are being lifted > by a small number of companies. ?google knows who they are. > you don't need us to identify the books one by one, individually. > > -bowerbird another commenter there -- michael ward -- asked for actual examples, and i told him that i would come here and get some specifics from y'all... let's give google lots of good reasons to take out these scumbags, ok? i mean, providing a service by offering hard-copy of public-domain books is _one_ thing, but locking out full-view of those same books is _wrong_... techdirt has enough clout to prod action, and they will be tenacious too, so let's take advantage of this opportunity and strike while the iron is hot... -bowerbird -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From marcello at perathoner.de Mon Sep 27 07:38:48 2010 From: marcello at perathoner.de (Marcello Perathoner) Date: Mon, 27 Sep 2010 16:38:48 +0200 Subject: [gutvol-d] [Fwd: Mobile App has Problem W/Inputting] Message-ID: <4CA0AC78.6000702@perathoner.de> Can anybody with a Kindle 3 confirm this? -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Mobile App has Problem W/Inputting Date: Thu, 23 Sep 2010 21:37:14 -0700 From: Carl Johnson To: I'm using the new Kindle 3 and when I go to the mobile Gutenberg site I'm unable to input any text in the search box for author, title, etc. I get the pointing hand with the cursor blinking within the box but entering letters produces nothing. I think it has to do with your site since the inputting function works everywhere else using the Kindle. Thanks if you can fix this. You've got a giant site I'd like to use. Carl -- Marcello Perathoner webmaster at gutenberg.org From jimad at msn.com Tue Sep 28 06:59:19 2010 From: jimad at msn.com (Jim Adcock) Date: Tue, 28 Sep 2010 06:59:19 -0700 Subject: [gutvol-d] Re: [Fwd: Mobile App has Problem W/Inputting] In-Reply-To: <4CA0AC78.6000702@perathoner.de> References: <4CA0AC78.6000702@perathoner.de> Message-ID: >>Mobile App has Problem W/Inputting >Can anybody with a Kindle 3 confirm this? Yes, I can confirm that my K3 doesn't "work" with m.gutenberg.org, in that if I try to input say an author search term, the site doesn't allow any text to be input into the text box, and the "search" returns the default listing of "all" authors, ignoring the search term. I hadn't even notice this problem, however, because on the K3 the m.gutenberg.org site outputs too much html to fit on one display page, meaning that the author search term box scrolls off the top of the display, such that K3 users are IMHO unlikely to even notice that if they *were* to scroll back up the display there would be a search box there for them to input things into. So I thought you were just "forcing" an unsorted list of authors onto K3 users... ...the good news now is that at least the webkit browser in K3 now works very well with the default site, www.gutenberg.org, including all the various search and advanced search options. From marcello at perathoner.de Tue Sep 28 07:31:49 2010 From: marcello at perathoner.de (Marcello Perathoner) Date: Tue, 28 Sep 2010 16:31:49 +0200 Subject: [gutvol-d] Re: [Fwd: Mobile App has Problem W/Inputting] In-Reply-To: References: <4CA0AC78.6000702@perathoner.de> Message-ID: <4CA1FC55.9080901@perathoner.de> Jim Adcock wrote: >>> Mobile App has Problem W/Inputting > >> Can anybody with a Kindle 3 confirm this? > > Yes, I can confirm that my K3 doesn't "work" with m.gutenberg.org, in that > if I try to input say an author search term, the site doesn't allow any text > to be input into the text box, and the "search" returns the default listing > of "all" authors, ignoring the search term. I hadn't even notice this > problem, however, because on the K3 the m.gutenberg.org site outputs too > much html to fit on one display page, meaning that the author search term > box scrolls off the top of the display, such that K3 users are IMHO unlikely > to even notice that if they *were* to scroll back up the display there would > be a search box there for them to input things into. So I thought you were > just "forcing" an unsorted list of authors onto K3 users... What happens if you disable javascript? -- Marcello Perathoner webmaster at gutenberg.org From jimad at msn.com Tue Sep 28 08:40:23 2010 From: jimad at msn.com (Jim Adcock) Date: Tue, 28 Sep 2010 08:40:23 -0700 Subject: [gutvol-d] Re: [Fwd: Mobile App has Problem W/Inputting] In-Reply-To: <4CA1FC55.9080901@perathoner.de> References: <4CA0AC78.6000702@perathoner.de> <4CA1FC55.9080901@perathoner.de> Message-ID: >What happens if you disable javascript? No change in behavior, same problem.