Dangerously e-books: How do I know if my ebooks have been altered?

[Catlady]

Originally Posted by doubleshuffle

How about you make a list of requirements uploaders have to meet before you deem their work worthy of a download? I'm sure everybody will be happy to comply.

Simple. Don't change the words. If you feel a burning desire to explain that a word's meaning has changed over time, add a note.

[Catlady]

Originally Posted by doubleshuffle

Why don't you just go and bother someone else? Everything you keep on complaining about has been dealt with seriously early on in this thread. We all DO care about words, and it is nothing less than insulting of you to keep on saying we don't. Really, I'm beginning to get seriously angry.

Seriously? Stop responding with insults and marginalizing legitmate concerns as paranoia, then.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Catlady

Seriously? Stop responding with insults and marginalizing legitmate concerns as paranoia, then.

I've told you what you can do about it if you actually care. Do you care enough to actually put in a bit of effort and contribute to the library, or are you just going to complain that other peoples' work doesn't meet your personal standards? Actions speak louder than words.

[Catlady]

Originally Posted by eschwartz

The difference is that reading a book with mangled formatting ruins your ability to read and enjoy the story.
Reading a book with revisions that you don't know about is a perfectly pleasant reading experience.

Most people don't really care about the exact original words because it wouldn't change anything for them. Plenty of people will read the revised version even if it has a warning to that effect, and IIRC you yourself are fine with it just so long as there is a warning?

Yeah. All those people -- they don't give a darn about changes to the words.

No, I'm not fine with it. I would not read something that had been revised, and I don't know where you're getting any idea that I would. I would like to know SO I CAN AVOID IT. Same way I would avoid an abridgment.

[eschwartz]

Originally Posted by Catlady

No, I'm not fine with it. I would not read something that had been revised, and I don't know where you're getting any idea that I would. I would like to know SO I CAN AVOID IT. Same way I would avoid an abridgment.

The point was, it seems to be all right for those uploads to exist, therefore implying that they fill a legitimate need as I've described.

Whether or not you yourself would read those copies is completely irrelevant to that issue.

[Catlady]

Originally Posted by HarryT

I've told you what you can do about it if you actually care. Do you care enough to actually put in a bit of effort and contribute to the library, or are you just going to complain that other peoples' work doesn't meet your personal standards? Actions speak louder than words.

Oh please.

Wanting something to be transcribed correctly is a bit more than a "personal standard."

How about holding the uploaders to some standard of accuracy? How about not allowing uploads that have not been proofed? How about requiring uploaders to specify what kind of changes they've made?

[Catlady]

Originally Posted by eschwartz

The point was, it seems to be all right for those uploads to exist, therefore implying that they fill a legitimate need as I've described.

Whether or not you yourself would read those copies is completely irrelevant to that issue.

Their existence is completely irrelevant. What is relevant is that any deviation from the source should be made clear.

[eschwartz]

Who is going to hold the standards to a standard of accuracy?
How can you trust the proofreaders? (Bigger question is, who do you think wants to do that? Are you volunteering? If not, does that mean the library must shut down?)
How can you trust their word when they say no changes were made?

[jandrew]

Originally Posted by Catlady

Oh please.

Wanting something to be transcribed correctly is a bit more than a "personal standard."

How about holding the uploaders to some standard of accuracy? How about not allowing uploads that have not been proofed? How about requiring uploaders to specify what kind of changes they've made?

How about starting your own public Catlady ebook library with those guidelines? How will you enforce your guidelines? How will you vet your contributors and their contributions? Without an element of trust, it'll just be you contributing books to your library. And why should anyone else trust your Catlady library books over the books here? And what about the children? (sorry, but every public debate should have at least one outcry about the children).

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Catlady

How about holding the uploaders to some standard of accuracy? How about not allowing uploads that have not been proofed? How about requiring uploaders to specify what kind of changes they've made?

You seem terribly keen to tell other people how they should be doing the work, but somewhat less willing to actually make any contribution to it yourself. I've told you how you can make a genuinely useful contribution to our library. Are you going to do so?

[doubleshuffle]

Originally Posted by Catlady

How about holding the uploaders to some standard of accuracy? How about not allowing uploads that have not been proofed? How about requiring uploaders to specify what kind of changes they've made?

The way you keep on demanding that the books here should not only be given to you free of charge and be subject to a professional proofing service without being willing to put in any effort yourself tells a lot about your attitude.

That you keep on insinuating that the Mobileread library is full of hack jobs without any standards is a serious insult. You feel entitled to this insult in the face of being given authoritative, painstakingly proofread editions of many classics by HarryT; beautifully crafted and exclusive (literally: not to be found anywhewre else) complete editions by pynch; the most beautiful illustrated ebook editions of Mark Twain's works that you can imagine by GrannyGrump; the best ebook edition of Shelley's poetry available anywhere by charleski; countless books that are only available as pdf-scans elsewhere, which have been OCRed and formatted for the Mobileread library by many uploaders who put in countless hours of work - and so on. You get it all for free here, and won't stop complaining and thus insulting all uploaders, and yet you feel insulted?

It's been a while since I met someone with such a shameless sense of entitlement.

[jbjb]

The sense of entitlement and lack of gratitude being shown by some posters in this thread is frankly staggering.

The MR library is a fantastic resource, created through the selfless efforts of a great many contributors. I really don't understand the mentality that chooses to find fault with this.

If you don't like the way it's done, you're free to try to do it better yourself - don't carp about the efforts of people who donate the fruits of their not-inconsiderable labours, without reward, for the benefit of others.

HarryT and all the many other contributors to the MR library - THANK YOU! Your work has given very many people a great deal of pleasure.

/JB

[PeterT]

I can't help but wonder how people ensure that a hard copy book has not been changed in any way, shape or form.

Surely a lot of acquiring any content, electronic or printed is trust; trust in the publisher, printer, type setter, formatter, you name it.

Additionally, what constitutes the edition of record?

[issybird]

I think Catlady's position and attitude are being grossly misrepresented. It seems to me that all she's saying, and she can correct me if I'm wrong, is that if people change the text of a book they upload they should note it.

This seems eminently reasonable to me. The words that the author wrote should be sacrosanct. Surely those who love books enough to go to the very great effort of uploading them are not in favor of unnoted bowdlerization! I don't see any sense of entitlement, or that people should do things her way, or any of the rest of it. Indeed, I think she's been made a straw man, since the real issue as I see it should be uploaders who emend texts and taint the pristine works by association. I also don't think it would be a big deal to have a guideline that said something to the effect that, "any changes in the text should be noted" and that would protect the uploaders as well as the readers.

I really do assume everyone's essentially on the same side! I don't understand the acrimony, the shouting, the personal criticisms, or any of the rest of it.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by issybird

The words that the author wrote should be sacrosanct.

But they aren't - books get edited all the time, and frequently because word usages change. Eg, look at the edition of Josephine Tey's book "The Man in the Queue" in the MR library and you'll find a chapter in it called "The Levantine". Most modern editions have that wording. But look at the book as it was originally published and you'll find that the chapter is called "The Dago", and no, the modern editions don't tell you it's been changed.

Publishers constantly change books, and they don't tell the reader. That's the way the world is.