Citing Websites

[Turtle91]

Originally Posted by doubleshuffle

Well, I agree the problem is that e-books are so easy to modify. In case of the paper book I can quote the exact edition and everything is fine. E-boks could really use an exact location system. I've been thinking of numbering the paragraphs; that in connection with proper accounting for versions (like most - all? - uploaders to the MR library do with the version numbers) could make e-books perfectly quotable.

Unfortunately, as has been mentioned before, just because you reference a particular version number does not mean that version number is accessible any longer. When an ebook is updated online, it replaces the previous version. So, again, this need to have a specific page to reference, is useless outdated. For technical references there are section/sub-section numbers and then the individual can quickly scan/search/find that exact point. IMHO Paragraph numbers are overkill.

[Tex2002ans]

Originally Posted by Notjohn

Alas, I for one self-publisher find myself revising the print edition more often than formerly in order to keep it in sync with the ebook. And I don't change the metadata or the ISBN, though I do change the year of publication on the title page and in the book description. So I am not helping things.

Yeah, I would most likely just add a little version # or "Last Updated" line in the copyright page.

For example:

© 2014 by Notjohn
Latest Ebook Revision: November 2017

Sort of like when Publishers might add what # printing it is:

© 2014 by Notjohn
1st Edition, November 2014
2nd Edition, January 2016
8th Printing, November 2017

Originally Posted by doubleshuffle

Sorry Jon, but you're mistaken about the accuracy of ADE page numbers. As has been explained before in this thread, edits to a book, even small ones, affect ADE page numbers.

For instance, when I build a book, it is easiest for my workflow to have large html files with many chapters/poems in the early stages. But at a certain point I split them into one file for each chapter/poem. The ADE page count rises considerably in the process (by hundreds of pages in a collection of many poems).

Big edits, big changes, yes, but the point is that edits do change the numbering; small edits might only make small changes to the page numbers, but even small changes will render the numbering inaccurate.

I agree about the separate HTML chapters per poem throwing off the ADE Page Numbers. I assume the algorithm is "1024 compressed bytes OR new file."

I also put together a proof of concept EPUB to show how easy Byte Methods are thrown off. I just grabbed the first EPUB I saw out of the MobileRead EPUB section:

AlexBell's conversion of "Turgenev, Ivan: The Diary of a Superfluous Man and Other Stories. v1 4 Nov 2017"

* * * (All three tests are attached at the end of this post) * * *

Test #1

I don't believe AlexBell uses Sigil to build the EPUB (just open it up and take a look at the structure).

If you look at his HTML, he also uses the HTML character codes, … + – + ’ + [...]:

Test #2

If you open the EPUB in Sigil and just save it.

Sigil moves things into its own folder structure, and the largest change would be character codes to their actual unicode characters: … + – + ’ + [...]:

Test #3

I then took all of Chapter 1's HTML and copied/pasted it below. Then I threw the entire duplicate Chapter 1 into a giant HTML comment.

Test Pages

ADE Pages

Test #1 = 145
Test #2 = 151
Test #3 = 194

Amazon Location #s

Test #1 = 2835
Test #2 = 2706
Test #3 = 2706

Summary

ADE

Test #1 -> Test #2:

The Unicode characters seem to compress slightly differently:

• The Test #1 filesizes are larger, but smaller compressed.
• The Test #2 filesizes are smaller, but the tiniest bit larger while compressed.

I think this is where the discrepancy of 6 ADE Pages comes from.

Test #2 -> Test #3:

ADE's algorithm counts HTML Comments... so the ADE Pages between #2 and #3 are COMPLETELY thrown off.

And it was VERY odd:

I was assuming the test would go like this:

• Test #2. Start in Chapter 1, and go all the way until you hit the "March 29" section.
• Test #3. Do the same thing. The ADE Page #s SHOULD be the same. I was expecting a GIANT jump only when you go from Chapter 1->Chapter 2 (the location of that giant HTML comment).

Instead:

Test #2, "March 29" was located on ADE Page 37.
Test #3, "March 29" was located on ADE Page 70.

(And Test #1, "March 29" was located on ADE Page 35.)

Kindles

Test #1 -> Test #2:

The Location #s changed by about 100, just from HTML codes -> Unicode characters.

Test #2 + #3:

These are the same Location #s on Kindles!

Note: MOBI/KindleGen throws away HTML comments (Could be bad or good depending on how you look at it. I personally use HTML comments often when working with images of formulas. I find them to be VERY important. One of the other reasons why I prefer EPUB.)

Originally Posted by Hitch

I don't mind admitting that that's weird. You'd think that the way that the "pages" are calculated, in ADE, woudl not change that much, by the simple expedient of splitting the pages, (files), unless HTML characters--and not simply text characters--are being counted, e.g., what's in the head.

I also recall ADE Page Numbers being thrown off because of EPUBs that weren't fully compressed.

We are so used to Sigil/Calibre (I believe they just use Maximum ZIP compression).

But I recall when I first started working on EPUBs, a lot of the old ones I was cleaning up were ZIPed with zero/little compression.

I remember ADE Page numbers varying wildly just because of that minor change in packaging. I would save in Sigil and be scratching my head (before I knew better and how you couldn't rely on ADE Pages!). :P

Originally Posted by Hitch

(It would be easier if the IDPF would come up with something, anything, that would make citing more consistent, but as we've all discussed here, before, on any number of topics--so what? Even if they did, what's to say that anyone would follow it? We could probably count on Apple not to; B&N, who knows--arguably, they're getting out of the biz, and then..well.)

Me and Doitsu have been having more of our PM chats.

There was an "I Annotate" conference earlier this year (speeches can be found here):

https://www.youtube.com/user/hypths/videos

It seems as if the W3C's Web Annotation standard has been finalized. (See "I Annotate 2017 Day 1 W3C Standards for Web Annotation: Rob Sanderson")

I would probably say that would be one of the best bets in getting Annotation supported in/across browsers (and thus, trickle its way down to ereaders).

From what I could see, a potential proof-of-concept might be a Google Books-type situation, where you could have a given link send you to a very specific section of a PDF/HTML/EPUB(?) file, and have your highlights/notes on top of it.

And that stuff might be okay when using digital documents to cite other digital documents, but I still don't see that as a good way to cite physical <-> digital. (So you wouldn't be able to have the same text citation in your Print + ebook.)

Anyway, I'll be listening through all those I Annotate speeches over the coming week, and I'll be jotting down my own summaries of each speech. I could send you a copy if you are interested.

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by doubleshuffle

Sorry Jon, but you're mistaken about the accuracy of ADE page numbers. As has been explained before in this thread, edits to a book, even small ones, affect ADE page numbers.

For instance, when I build a book, it is easiest for my workflow to have large html files with many chapters/poems in the early stages. But at a certain point I split them into one file for each chapter/poem. The ADE page count rises considerably in the process (by hundreds of pages in a collection of many poems).

Big edits, big changes, yes, but the point is that edits do change the numbering; small edits might only make small changes to the page numbers, but even small changes will render the numbering inaccurate.

Sorry, but your wrong. When edits are made, the edition of the book becomes a different edition. So when using the same edition, ADE page numbering works no problem. When changes are made to a pBook the changes can also effect the page numbers. So it's no different with ADE page numbers and pBook page numbers.

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by Turtle91

Unfortunately, as has been mentioned before, just because you reference a particular version number does not mean that version number is accessible any longer. When an ebook is updated online, it replaces the previous version. So, again, this need to have a specific page to reference, is useless outdated. For technical references there are section/sub-section numbers and then the individual can quickly scan/search/find that exact point. IMHO Paragraph numbers are overkill.

And when a publisher makes changes to a pBook for the next print run, the old version is no longer available.

[JSWolf]

I have seen some eBooks with a version number in the copyright.

[Hitch]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

Sorry, but your wrong. When edits are made, the edition of the book becomes a different edition. So when using the same edition, ADE page numbering works no problem. When changes are made to a pBook the changes can also effect the page numbers. So it's no different with ADE page numbers and pBook page numbers.

I am, very seriously, trying to stay away from this discussion, which has convos that aren't productive. HOWEVER, regardless of technical stuff, vis-a-vis ePUB, page numbering, and all that shite, I do want to point out that normally, about this, @Wolfie is right. When extensive or even moderate edits are made to a book, it should be a new edition of the book.

Now....we all know that that's changed. That every Tom Dick and Harriet is self-pubbing, and changing their books willy-nilly, either provoked by reader feedback or not. OR, just because they CAN. Alas, the order that used to control editions is no longer.

Spoiler:

This is one of my freaking hot buttons. The dictatorship of the masses, over the creatives and their products. This mindset that just because a Word file can be edited in five minutes or less, that books should be subject to the same immediacy. It serves NO ONE well, other than the self-appointed "edit police" that roam Amazon like packs of wild dogs, seeking to find mistakes over which they can gloat and then exercise their perceived "power" by reporting them, and getting the Great God Amazon to make the author/publisher dance to the Tune of the Spoiled Rotten Reader.
Now back to the actual topic:

That being the case, the old "rules," the distinction between one edition and the next is lost. Only for those of us who cling to pedantry are the rules still the rules.

So, whilst Wolfie is right--he's also wrong, simply because the ability of anyone to exercise control over versioning is long gone. Those of us who care about such things have been overruled by the masses and by word-processing.

SO: we need to find a way--we need a Harry Potteresque magic way--to make annotations work across editions. Otherwise, we are all spinning our wheels here, arguing about minutiae--about which nobody else gives two sh*ts.

Offered solely FWIW.

Hitch