Page Numbers, Percentage, or nothing at all

[MGlitch]

Originally Posted by ratinox

I didn't forget. I simply took it for granted that a set would be one file/archive per volume and that if you wanted to reference a specific point in a specific volume you would note the title or volume number.

You could probably break it down that way, the whole thing comes in one file though the ToC does delineate when a new book starts.

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by MGlitch

You’re using an arbitrary system to define another arbitrary system rather than using a definitive system.

Hold out a page from an ereader. I’ll wait.

Page numbers for a pBook is not a definitive system. You have different physical versions of the same book and you end up with different page numbers.

With the exact same eBook, I get the exact same page numbers using ADE page numbers no matter the screen size and all the other things that can be changed.

So which one works better? ADE page numbers of course.

[ratinox]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

Page numbers for a pBook is not a definitive system. You have different physical versions of the same book and you end up with different page numbers.

True. Physical books are counted in words. But then, so are electronic books. Word number 18,291 in a 50,000 word book is always the same word whether it's a pocket paperback, a hardcover, a large print, a plain text file, an HTML file, an ePub archive, a Kepub archive, a MOBI file, a LIT file, a KF8 archive, a PRC file, a... heck, a papyrus scroll, notches in clay tablets, even scratchings on a cave wall. Get the point yet?

With the exact same eBook, I get the exact same page numbers using ADE page numbers no matter the screen size and all the other things that can be changed.

So which one works better? ADE page numbers of course.

Show me a physical book that uses ADE faux pages and I'll reconsider the assertion.

[MGlitch]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

Page numbers for a pBook is not a definitive system. You have different physical versions of the same book and you end up with different page numbers.

With the exact same eBook, I get the exact same page numbers using ADE page numbers no matter the screen size and all the other things that can be changed.

So which one works better? ADE page numbers of course.

I’m still waiting for you to show me a digital page in a physical world.

Until such a time any system used to measure a page in an ebook is arbitrary and meaningless. Especially since without modifying the ebook you have no way to know how accurate the ADE method is to giving you your vaunted book length.

Word count at least excludes any formatting used, and will net you a precise location in every format of the book. At best ADE can only hope to apply to ePub.

So ADE loses on accuracy, consistency across format, and measuring anything meaningful since a 1mb ebook could end up being shorter than a 512kb ebook.

[rcentros]

Originally Posted by MGlitch

Because honestly the sooner we divorce ebooks from mirroring physical books the better IMO. It’s like transitioning from scrolls to bound books, the convention used to measure length doesn’t apply anymore. Fortunately we don’t still measure books as being inches or feet long.

Yeah, but we know the difference between a 500 page book (novel) and a 200 page book (romance, western, etc.). I've got a nine book series I bought from Kobo. The print length is 2,828 pages (when adding all nine books). The old way Kobo handled KePub page numbering resulted in 2,744 "pages." (So fairly close, not exact, correlation.) Now that same series (in my standard sized font, is 6,946 "pages" (screens)). But if I use the smallest font size it's 1,523 "pages" — the largest font-size produces a "page" count of 82,836. In other words, KePubs "page" count has become completely worthless.

You may be in favor of "divorcing" eBook page counts from paper book page counts, but I'm not. I still read both eBooks and printed books and I like consistency, or at least relative consistency. An arbitrary screen "page" count just isn't going to hack it for me. I'll go a different direction.

Originally Posted by MGlitch

Also just how many old options should we leave in? Over the years Kobo have removed and changed features that people liked. While some can be tweaked back with patches not all can be. So should Kobo just add more and more screens to the settings to accommodate all these things? And what about when these systems start to cause issues?

In my opinion, the meaningless "change with the whiff of the wind" screen "page" count SHOULD be the option, not the old system that at least correlated (relatively) with printed books. Again, the new "page" count system is meaningless because so-called "page" counts can morph into almost any number.

Originally Posted by MGlitch

How often do you change the font size, line spacing or margins? I’d wager for most people it’s a set and forget thing, maybe some fiddling with size depending on circumstances but still not a frequent thing. So the 1 screen = 1 page would be relatively in changed.

Additionally with the old system there was a direct contradiction with the pages left in the chapter.

Actually, I usually change the font size at night, when my eyes are tireder. But this is really beside the point. The fact that page counts change when the font sizes change makes the whole concept of a "page" count worthless.

[rcentros]

Originally Posted by Katsunami

Page numbers in physical books are also totally meaningless.

My hardcover version of Shogun is 920 pages.
My girlfriend's paperback version is 1100-something pages.
My ebook version, when counting with my own scheme of 2100 characters (350 words per page), is 1276 "pages".

I don't even really care what the e-reader says. To me, the ebook is 1276 pages, and if the ereader makes 1400 or 1531 out of that because of the one page per screen scenario, I'm fine with that.

The only thing I need to know, is that if I'm at 10%, I'll be at MY page 127 out of 1276.

Using your own count also means that a book of 600 "pages" actually is about twice the length of a book that has 300 "pages".

The difference, of course, is when you have a printed book you can SEE the size of it. You can feel the heft of it. An eBook, on the other hand, is just a screen of text, now with a meaningless "page" count. You haven't got a clue what the length of the book is. My 9 books series (mentioned in another post) was 2,744 "pages" in the old scheme (which was close to the printed series), the same sized font produces about 7,000 "pages." in the new firmware. I'm not asking for exact correlation with printed books, I'm asking for relative correlation, which is what we did have in the old firmware.

[koboy]

Originally Posted by rcentros

Yeah, but we know the difference between a 500 page book (novel) and a 200 page book (romance, western, etc.). I've got a nine book series I bought from Kobo. The print length is 2,828 pages (when adding all nine books). The old way Kobo handled KePub page numbering resulted in 2,744 "pages." (So fairly close, not exact, correlation.) Now that same series (in my standard sized font, is 6,946 "pages" (screens)). But if I use the smallest font size it's 1,523 "pages" — the largest font-size produces a "page" count of 82,836. In other words, KePubs "page" count has become completely worthless.

You may be in favor of "divorcing" eBook page counts from paper book page counts, but I'm not. I still read both eBooks and printed books and I like consistency, or at least relative consistency. An arbitrary screen "page" count just isn't going to hack it for me. I'll go a different direction.



In my opinion, the meaningless "change with the whiff of the wind" screen "page" count SHOULD be the option, not the old system that at least correlated (relatively) with printed books. Again, the new "page" count system is meaningless because in it "page" counts can morph into almost any number.



Actually, I usually change the font size at night, when my eyes are tireder. But this is really beside the point. The fact that page counts change when the font sizes change makes the whole concept of a "page" count worthless.

worthless in your opinion.

page count per chapter in my opinion is (essential) regardless of font size it gives me a good indication of if i want to start reading the next chapter or not.

best wishes koboy

[rcentros]

Originally Posted by koboy

worthless in your opinion.

page count per chapter in my opinion is (essential) regardless of font size it gives me a good indication of if i want to start reading the next chapter or not.

best wishes koboy

What I meant is that it's worthless in determining the size of the book in comparison to a printed book.

[rcentros]

Originally Posted by ratinox

...Of course, measuring ebooks in terms of inches makes about as much sense as measuring them in terms of pages.

Except page counts have been the standard since printed books were printed and people know the relative length of a 500 page book when compared to a 200 page book (for example).

[koboy]

Originally Posted by rcentros

What I meant is that it's worthless in determining the size of the book in comparison to a printed book.

ok my apologies for the misunderstanding.

best wishes koboy

[rcentros]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

With the exact same eBook, I get the exact same page numbers using ADE page numbers no matter the screen size and all the other things that can be changed.

Consistency is even more important with an eBook because, with a printed book, you can see (even wiegh) the length of the book. (Mentioned in another post.) When "page" numbers become arbitrary on eReaders, depending on the size of the screen or font, they become meaningless.

[rcentros]

Originally Posted by koboy

ok my apologies for the misunderstanding.

best wishes koboy

Best wishes to you too. Looks like I'm turning into a crank on this issue. Kobo can do what they want (their "page" number scheme is kind of similar to the old Kindle location number — except Kindle's location number didn't change with font or screen changes). But I don't have to like it.

[MGlitch]

Originally Posted by rcentros

Except page counts have been the standard since printed books were printed and people know the relative length of a 500 page books when compared to a 200 page books (for example).

Yes when books were printed. I don’t know about you but I don’t print my ebooks.

It’s not the same media. You wanting it to be the same doesn’t change that. It’s like insisting we use page counts for audiobooks. It makes no sense and it never will.

While I don’t think it’s perfect going off one screen to ‘page’ tells you exactly how many taps it’s going to take for you to get to the end. And sure that it’s adjusted based on font size, screen size, etc makes referencing it harder for academic usage it’s not like physical books are immune to the same issue with different formats.

And again you know exactly how many taps it’s going to take to get you to the end of a kepub. With ADE and the old kepub system you didn’t because a ‘page’ could end three lines into a new screen.

You’re neglecting to mention that in the current system in an x of y pages of you adjust settings while y goes up so to does x. It’s not like new pages are generated at the end of the book. So you still have the same relative position.

[MGlitch]

Originally Posted by rcentros

Consistency is even more important with an eBook because, with a printed book, you can see (even wiegh) the length of the book. (Mentioned in another post.) When "page" numbers become arbitrary on eReaders, depending on the size of the screen or font, they become meaningless.

Page numbers didn’t become arbitrary in ebooks they always were arbitrary.

Yes once you apply a system like ADE it’s going to have some level of consistency but the parameters for ADE are arbitrary they could have used anything as is evidenced by the different system kepub used.

They were only applied to ebooks because people were used to them from the physical limitations of physical books.

You want something consistent that gives you book length use word counts.

[ZodWallop]

Originally Posted by rcentros

But I don't have to like it.

You don't have to use it either. Just use ePubs. This entire thread seems to pretend that that is not an option, when of course it is.

Since ePubs are available, why does it matter what kepub does?