[Faterson]

Originally Posted by eschwartz

Using the @Faterson definition of a page does not make it any less subjective than using the @eschwartz definition.

Not true. There is nothing "subjective" about flipping a page and seeing the page-count go up or down by exactly 1 every time, regardless of your screen size or layout settings. That is 0% subjective, and 100% objective.

Also, an e-book does not "change page numbering all by itself". Never. It can only do so if the user initiates that, by changing his or her layout settings – so that it then does not really occur "by itself". Changing layout settings in an e-book amounts to a reprinting of a traditional book – and there is no obligation for reprintings to follow the page numberings of previous editions.

Originally Posted by eschwartz

It has a tremendous amount of legacy baggage associated with the term.

I don't see any baggage. If there is any baggage, it's being artificially added by folks suffering under the delusion discussed earlier – that pages in electronic books can be in any way useful for cross-referencing text locations between various layout settings, reading devices, e-reader apps, or platforms. It simply needs to be explained to all such folks that this cannot be accomplished, and that's it. Just as pages are useless for cross-reference purposes in printed books unless everyone uses the exact same printed edition, they are equally useless in electronic books. There's no mystery there – move along, please. The only thing pages are good for in electronic books is the same thing that they are good for in printed books: they give you an idea as to where you are inside the book as you're reading through it.

Originally Posted by eschwartz

Having seen more than enough cases of people actually expecting ebook pseudorandom-calculated "pages" to be useful reference indicators

E-books are a relatively recent phenomenon; most people on this planet don't have a clue what an e-book is. And many of those who are convinced they know what e-books are, don't have a clue either. (They consider PDF files to be e-books, for example.)

So, we just need to be patient. Enlightenment doesn't come easily or overnight. It simply needs to be explained, patiently, over and over again, that pages are useless for cross-referencing purposes in e-books. After everyone gets that, pages in e-books can finally be what they truly are – pages. No more – no cross-referencing aid.

(For cross-referencing purposes in e-books, I tirelessly promote the entirely new metric of percentage-into-text, with 2 decimals, based on word count. That is a cross-layout, cross-device, cross-platform metric, and far more precise than pages in printed books ever were. Although it can't be a 100% precise metric, either, of course. Once people understand that the percentage indicator is far more useful for cross-referencing purposes than pages ever were or ever can be, then people can finally let pages be what they are – just pages on the current reading device using its current layout settings, with no usefulness whatsoever for cross-referencing purposes.)