Quote:
Originally Posted by foghat
And as a side note: this is one reason why locations are preferable to page numbers - the location cited will get your professor to the the 'page' in question no matter what reading device or font size he is using. This of course assumes he is viewing the kindle version of the book or some other version/reader that supports locations.
|
Yes, and to be reliable, it would also have to be the exact same Kindle ebook file of that title.
What most people who like locations and think they should be standard fail to consider is that locations count the markup as well as the text the reader can see.
This makes them a failure as a standard, because different formats - and even different files of the same title - use different markup.
e.g., not only do epub versions and mobi versions of a title have vastly different locations, but so even can two mobi editions,
even if the two books look identical to the reader.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sirmaru
Cite by locations and specify they are Kindle eBook locations. They are far more accurate than pBook locations which can vary from edition to edition.
|
See above. Locations do not remain consistent across editions, even within the same format.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wongdong
I wouldn't use the locations. It would mean everyone following your citation needs to buy the kindle version (as no other reading device supports this arbitrary numbering method). Instead, use the percentage. That can be mapped to the paper version too. Take comma percentage if the book is large (Some books are more than 10 pagebreaks per percent, meaning one page is 0,1 additional percent.
Thats the only citation method I would accept (and I am an assistant professor).
|
It is definitely true that percentage is reliably computable to the hard copy, but it's only reliable if the percentage is calculated by
visible text, e.g., screen views.
Percentages that are calculated by bytes are not reliable, as the other person doesn't have that variable to use in his calculation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wongdong
If the book has 415 pages it is page 155 or 156. Faaar better than location 2127-40 / 7093
But again, thats only my personal optinion.
|
But you're right.
Computing bytes to the visible text is like trying to compute how many ounces are in a mile.
BUT:
If I say "screen X of Y," then all the other person needs is his own Y, be it a page of a book or a screen on an any e-reading device, and they can reliably calculate their X of Y.
Quote:
Originally Posted by thetonyclifton
Why cant they just use page numbers - yes the number of pages in the book will change depending on font size etc but - I dont think it is impossible.
It could simple say Page 8 of 300 and when you increased the font size it recalculated to Page 16 of 380 etc etc - it is not drastically different from the locations info but in a much more user friendly and understandable format.
|
Looking down the road, I expect that, or possibly a word count, to become the standard, because they would work across formats, and don't depend on publishers' embedding a page number.
Paragraph counts would be optimal, but looking at the markup on most ebooks, it would be a nightmare of ghosts.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheKindleWorm
I wish locations were the standard across all ebook devices so it would not matter on what device you read an ebook because citing a location would be the same no matter where you read it.
|
Except they wouldn't actually be the same at all.
An epub version of Little Women will not have the same locations as a .mobi version.
Even two .mobi versions of Little Womens can have different locations. Mark your paragraphs with a <p class="whatever"> instead of a <p>, or add hyperlinks, footnotes, tables, and your locations are shot to heck.
We need a standard, and we need one that accounts for more sophisticated markup as ebooks mature.
Locations will not work as that standard as long as they count hidden bytes.