View Single Post
Old 02-15-2012, 02:40 PM   #350
saxondawg
Connoisseur
saxondawg is faster than a rolling 'o,' stronger than silent 'e,' and leaps capital 'T' in a single bound!saxondawg is faster than a rolling 'o,' stronger than silent 'e,' and leaps capital 'T' in a single bound!saxondawg is faster than a rolling 'o,' stronger than silent 'e,' and leaps capital 'T' in a single bound!saxondawg is faster than a rolling 'o,' stronger than silent 'e,' and leaps capital 'T' in a single bound!saxondawg is faster than a rolling 'o,' stronger than silent 'e,' and leaps capital 'T' in a single bound!saxondawg is faster than a rolling 'o,' stronger than silent 'e,' and leaps capital 'T' in a single bound!saxondawg is faster than a rolling 'o,' stronger than silent 'e,' and leaps capital 'T' in a single bound!saxondawg is faster than a rolling 'o,' stronger than silent 'e,' and leaps capital 'T' in a single bound!saxondawg is faster than a rolling 'o,' stronger than silent 'e,' and leaps capital 'T' in a single bound!saxondawg is faster than a rolling 'o,' stronger than silent 'e,' and leaps capital 'T' in a single bound!saxondawg is faster than a rolling 'o,' stronger than silent 'e,' and leaps capital 'T' in a single bound!
 
Posts: 65
Karma: 50952
Join Date: Mar 2010
Device: kindle paperwhite
I hope I'm not re-raising a question that's been covered, but now that we have Page Count working together with the Goodreads Sync, is it possible to rethink the apnx generator so that it begins from the more accurate Goodreads page count, when available, rather than an estimate based on content? The apnx generator has served us well, but I do notice some big differences, for various reasons, between its estimates and what Goodreads says. I can certainly live with having a Goodreads page count in my metadata, and a different page count in the actual e-book (I'm assuming that's my situation now), but it would be great to tie these things in together.
saxondawg is offline   Reply With Quote