Goodreads Librarians Group discussion
Questions (not edit requests)
>
Once again about page numbering for ebooks
date
newest »
newest »
MrsJoseph wrote: "iBooks IS .epub."It's only somewhat ePub. It has a lot of things that do not work correctly or you have to figure out a work around.
@JsWolf, the google play stuff was Adobe content server and drm protection. Don't just pull out all the desktop and mobile ADE stuff out of context just because mentioned in the article. No one is arguing that the ADE software works with ePub files. Just that it's not a standard and no better or worse at ebook page numbers than anything else reading ePubs without fixed format page numbering.
*Sigh* My fault. I didn't give context for ADE mentions for all the ePub info links I mentioned.. And this member obviously does not have any of his own to support that ADE is the standard so is reaching. (Not even touching the ibooks-don't-matter discussion; I don't have statistics of ibook users vs. ADE users but I do know there is book editions and isbn crossover.)
Scott wrote: "GoodReads really ought to eliminate the page count for e-books since it is basically meaningless unless you want to assume a physical edition (if there is one) is the correct count. File size is a..."Well, some books ePub (and kindle's modified mobi) are starting to have real, fixed page numbers. It's optional in both file formats. And when used by the mainstream publishers corresponds to the page number information publisher data provides.
Which still makes sense to use publisher data.
I'm not sure I understand about the book stats - if it's the exact same story and number of words but the ebook edition and the print edition at goodreads have different number of pages, how do you compare? Isn't that getting into an apples/oranges thing? Wouldn't you want both editions to match to number of printed pages for the story if comparing stats? Don't most group challenges specify which edition is used for challenge stats?
Debbie (Debbie Rice) wrote: "Scott wrote: "GoodReads really ought to eliminate the page count for e-books since it is basically meaningless unless you want to assume a physical edition (if there is one) is the correct count. ..."Unless it is ePub 3, fixed format ePub is not part of the specification and therefor, not valid ePub. The fixed formats for ePub used by Apple and B&N are not valid ePub. The only page number system we have for ePub is what ADE uses. If we say that isn't allowed, then we punish people who do read ePub from being able to use the page number stats as the page numbers will either be incorrect or non-existent.
Just what is wrong with using ADE's page numbering when it does not change based on the text size?
Ok so I have been following this conversation for a bit and haven't said anything until now. I just can't help but speak up. I admit that I have little knowledge about ePub as I use a Kindle and deal with formats other than ePub. I do get a little bummed when I am not able to track how many pages I've read because most of my Kindle ebooks don't have page numbers posted on Goodreads but I wouldn't want what I thought the page number to be forced on other readers. ePub readers are not the only readers who are not able to use page number stats, and until we are able to come up with a solution that will be beneficial to all users things must stay as they are. Sorry for intruding upon this lively debate but I just couldn't help myself.
That's okay. I agree with you on the kindle stuff.Actually JsWolf is just talking about the ePub format ebooks he reads in ADE, presumably most bought directly from publishers.
"Ebooks" format here on goodreads usually has an isbn13 starting with "978..." and could be a variety of ebook formats (frequently but not always Adobe DRM protected and often ePub file format).
On goodreads the kindle books have an ASIN number and their own separate editions. nook pubit format (which is ePub format but has BNs own DRM or some sort of flavor twist) a bnid number starting with "294..." and also separate edition. Both Barnes and Noble and amazon have stated (and started implementing) they want to use real page numbers. Not all there yet on the page numbers.
On the isbn13 978...ebooks, in addition to their publisher site JsWolf used (for what I think was his most recent page number request more than a hundred pages off anyone else's count), Simon and Schuster also sells same epub file as nook books thru Barnes and Noble, ibooks thru iTunes, Google Play, etc. and several hundred ereaders (including Sony, iPad /iPhone, kobo, etc.) read the exact same files directly without using ADE.
His original contention is that ADE (not Adobe which holds copyright on the software and was involved in the development of epub format and not any other publishing industry organization) software itself is the only standard for epub and he is just now saying that any epub file not requiring ADE is not an epub file no matter what Adobe, the big six publishers, less traditional publishers like smashwords, goodreads staff, wikipedia, or even the U.S. Copyright Office have to say. Not even http://idpf.org/ which publishers, including the one he downloaded files from, acknowledge as responsible for the epub standard and maintaining it as an open-source, cross-platform file source can make him consider that he's the only one saying ADE is the standard for ePub.
(Kindle's ePub-not-used stance kept them out of library ebook loans for a brief while.)
So now, if I understand the debate, I think we've gone from whether or not ADE is the ePub standard used for ePub and should override Rivka and publisher data to JsWolf contending both that ePub files not in ADE are not ePub files and that ADE does not support the new fixed page number format. (Seriously, while I do not think ADE is the standard, I cannot imagine Adobe not keeping their software up to date to include support for current open-source file formats. Not a company known for sitting still.)
Oh, and I forgot his contention that iBooks don't matter (frequently same isbn and same epub filebut use their own DRM like nook sometimes does) and that public library ebooks can only go thru ADE so those of us borrowing via Overdrive software are just imagining things.
(ADE does not work well with Apple DRM so of course iBooks cannot count and no Mac or iOS system/device can possibly read epub formats since ADE not supported. So even if exact same ebook with exact same isbn goodreads must not support members using ibooks; they just don't matter.)
All on his word. Without any links or documentation or citing any sources.
[edited for typos]
Thanks for explaining that Debbie. It definitely helped me better understand ePub, and I agree with you in regards to ADE. If there are other methods being commonly used than it isn't the standard.
The logic here is just going in circles. Argument 1: ADE is the standard for ePub and so it must be used. When that is proven to be inaccurate, we get to Argument 2: Only certain types of ePub count because they go through ADE.
When that is proven to be inaccurate, we arrive at Argument 3: Only this specific version of an ePub file counts because it uses fixed page numbers, all the rest don't count.
When that is proven inaccurate, I wonder what Argument 4 will be. Popcorn anyone?
There is no way to be accurate with page numbers on ebooks at this moment. I understand the desire to have accurate page counts...I really do.
Suggestion: The best thing we have [after page number] is word count. I *think* it was Rivka who told me that MMPBs usually run about 250 words per page. So...maybe we could agree on a standard number of words per page to work with...and then use that number as the page count in lieu of a publisher provided page count? If there is no publisher provided page count and we had an accurate word count (as provided by the author or publisher).
Even with a word count for ebook file (some publishers like smashwords usually specify and some authors know because the software they write in tells them), still back to using information from publisher/author as the most reasonable/accessible standard source for the word count (which is what apparently only JsWolf argues is incorrect method of doing things).
Stefani wrote: "...Argument 3: Only this specific version of an ePub file counts because it uses fixed page numbers, all the rest don't count..."Well, actually, there is an argument 4 reversing the original point that ADE is to be used because has fixed page numbers to now saying ADE is to be used as it is the epub standard but it does not support the fixed page numbers epub now offers.
That one really loses me.
And the more there is debate about ebook page numbers, frankly, the more the standard of using publisher page counts when available makes sense if only to avoid debates (and avoid members all wanting their ereader device/app/software be the standard for the exact same ebook file).
I don't see the logistics of how it would work to have ADE as standard even if JsWolf won the argument.Granted, unless you use an operating system ADE does not support (like any Macintosh/apple/iOS computers that JsWlf contends do not count here at goodreads) or are in a country Adobe won't license to, we can all get the software for free. Are we then supposed to buy every ebook to open in ADE to get the page numbers? What about non-ePub ebooks? Or ebook formats that ADE won't open?
Does ADE have a site link where they show the page numbers for the ebooks for us like most publishers do? Do they offer any automatic data feeds goodreads could subscribe to? Surely if ADE holds the epub standard (versus epub being the open-source, cross-platform format publishers and the rest of the industry think it is), epub ebooks would have to be registered with ADE somehow? Get me a link to that database, let it show ebook page numbers without buying the book, and let it be something goodreads allowed to use as a data source—then I'm willing to consider that ADE could be a potential data source for the ebooks registered in that ADE database. Then once Rivka says the standard has changed to use that so-far-hypothetical ADE database for ebook data, I'll start using the ADE page numbers. Not at all opposed to using a one-stop database containing all publishers' ebook data in one place if it exists.
Good grief, what librarian is going to enter page numbers for ebooks if they have to buy the ebook then open in ADE to obtain the page count? Would we have to go back in every ebook and wipe out the older publisher page counts?
Bet the members who do use page count stats would not be happy to see all their ebook page numbers drop by 100+ pages per ebook over what they used to have if what JsWolf contends are incorrect publisher sourced page counts are ever "corrected" to match ADE page counts. (Well, if you assume average book in 300-500 page range, ADE page count will show as 100 or more pages fewer).
Following on from this, I've noticed a number of edits to ebook editions stating that they are "Adobe DRM EPUB" editions and altering the page numberings. I wouldn't have blinked if it hadn't been for this thread...
The page numberings still should match publisher settings. Rivka has definitely already spoken about page numbering.DRM refers to Digital Rights Management and is file security, encryption, copy protection protocol/software (whichever makes sense to you). Nothing whatsoever to do with book edition. Likely denotes something said on site they downloaded ebook from.
Adobe is the brand of DRM that actually will apply to that isbn ebook file only on certain devices/apps. The same ebook isbn sold, for example, on iBooks, would have Apple DRM instead of Adobe DRM.
Ebook as format okay; any DRM does not belong in edition field. Not even something to consider as policy change suggestion in feedback group until the "Adobe DRM epub" starts being assigned a unique isbn by publishers making it different from the "Apple DRM" and other flavors of DRM used by other vendors/retailers—I don't think the brand of the Digital Rights Management security and licensing belongs in the edition field.
In addition to brand of security used to secure the ebook, I don't think the file specification/type/format goes in the edition field or format field either one. Assuming it's even specified by vendor or publisher. In fact, "ebook" format isbn doesn't always specify if file type is mobi, stanza, epub, etc. (and publishers are not likely to obtain different isbns for each ebook file type they sell/provide). Lots of sites, even publishers, just say "ebook."
Some examples:
Nook ebooks: a unique isbn/asin specific to an exact edition like 294###### used for nook books is usually either epub or pubit file type and means we do say it's an ebook format nook edition; but, we don't specify "pubit" or "epub" in the edition field nor specify what if any DRM (Barnes and Noble, Adobe, or whatever flavor file protections) was used or if was sold DRM free. Not sure, short of buying, downloading and illegally disassembling the copyrighted materials where we'd even get that information for the nook ebooks (okay, does frequently have a "pubit" logo by some of them) if we even wanted to put file type and the brand of security used.
On kindle books, there's a unique ASIN so it gets to be called a Kindle edition. Some kindle books are DRM free; some have an Amazon unique DRM as part of kindle TOS, some have Adobe DRM—not always noted on amazon site and I've never seen DRM information specified in edition field for a kindle format book. DRM used is not specified on amazon site (sometimes "sold DRM free" at author or publisher request gets noted at amazon site, not always noted.). Same issue as nook.
At Smashwords site, like most publishers, there's only one isbn for ebook editions (whether or not file type os for PDF, kindle mobi, epub [including epub flavors for Apple iPad/iBooks, Nook, Sony Reader, Kobo, and most e-reading apps including Stanza, Aldiko, Adobe Digital Editions, etc.], pdf, pdb, etc.). DRM info usually not specified on their book pages either. Books sold with Smashwords listed as publisher on other retail sites may have a different isbn/ain/bnid, but the 978### ebook isbn doesn't denote epub or any other flavor ebook. If we were to start putting file types and types of DRM in the edition field, wow, for the indie publishers like smashwords that provide so many file formats and distribute to so many vendors, every ebook with smashwords as publisher would need dozens of editions.
Another publisher example, Baen, offers most ebooks DRM free, and uses exact same isbn13 978### number for ebook editions in file types for Sony Reader, mobi, kindle, palm, epub, nook, stanza, ms reader, etc. Their ebook titles here on goodreads have just said "ebook" in format field and do not say "DRM free" in the edition field, nor were there 40+ editions created for every ebook file type, such as "epub", they offer under that single isbn number with the file type specified in the edition field.
Just because there are hundreds of new ereaders and ereader apps appearing on the scene that might read an epub file, plus new DRM and file copy protections all competing...I don't think that's something goodreads could even begin to handle. If a department store develops it's own ereader supporting epub files and licenses or creates their own DRM, are we going to start putting "Sears Kenmore DRM" in the edition field if the exact same isbn epub file also sold for Kohl's new ereader, iPad, Sony, kobo, mobi, etc.?
Adobe is actually so prevalent as the DRM for epub format ebooks saying "Adobe DRM epub" is almost like saying it's an ebook anyway.
Epub is so prevalent as ebook file format used by the major traditional publishers and the major indie publishers, saying "epub" is almost like saying it's an ebook.
I'd say there's only a reason to be more specific in edition about what type of ebook if there's a unique isbn for each file type (epub, pubit, mobi, stanza, etc.). Otherwise, the same ebook edition just gets downloaded to thousands of devices or apps using whatever file type and DRM they support. I don't think goodreads can track all of them (and I don't think, unlike some previous posted statements, it's the right answer to decide that ibooks or kobo [or any other reading devices/vendors/apps/operating-systems/computers] should just be excluded as goodreads is not just for one member who is not likely to use all of 'em).
The brand of DRM or other software specs, whether or nor has a DRM, licensing such as whether or not part of kindle prime lending library, brand of ereader or app downloaded to and using to read (including but not limited to ADE software, tradebit ebook reader, et. al.), whether or not lendme enabled — none of those things belong in the edition field.
How on earth would we even be able to determine what ebook format an isbn is for much less what DRM was used if we did want to? Without having to download each file and illegally disassembling code to look at DRM in hopes it's even a brand recognized versus some in-house developed protocol? Most likely if not exactly Adobe DRM it was licensed from Adobe with or without additional tweaking; publishers/retailers/vendors/ereaders with unique security or DRM features actually are not likely to advertise thanks to hackers and pirates and everything leading to the DRM in the first place.
Not saying it's incorrect information or that no member would never want to know; but, I am saying that neither the security protocols nor the file type/specifications belong in the edition field of ebook format works.
Most of the retail and publisher sites tend to just say "ebooks" and will say file types"epub", "pdf", "mobi", etc. only if they offer multiple file tupe downloads. May sometimes denote "DRM free" but "Adobe or other DRM information most likely buried in a page with additional specs, tos agreement or other less visible site areas.A typical publisher ebook format page at http://www.harpercollins.com/books/Bu... .
An exception to the rule is the Simon and Schuster site where it says "ebook" format with no mention of ePub (until you get to download directions) but with an Adobe DRM logo showing on book page. Their exact same ebook ISBNs are used to sell the exact same ebooks rebranded as nook books (they do not convert to pubit file type or get a new bnid 294#### in order to sell the ebook on Barnes and Noble site).
Every site/vendor different; which also adds to the difficulty of trying to track ebook file types and DRMs if we even wanted to.
Plus, still doesn't mean the file type or any DRM settings belong in the edition field.
*ack* that was a long post. But, I was just mentally flashing to one book having more than 5,000 editions because the ebook was sold to x number brands of devices multiplied by y possible DRMs with z number of file types...
Nook books are ePub. B&N use ADE on their readers.The thing is, all ePub sold that has DRM (except for Apple and that's not always ePub as iBooks does not always follow the ePub standard) uses DRM from Adobe. ADE is needed to view/read these DRMed ePub. ADE uses a page numbering system that does not change based on the font size like some earlier eBook reading system did.
Now, we have ADE, it has standard page numbering for ePub. If you buy an ePub with DRM, you HAVE to use ADE. You get page numbers. Why is it we cannot use those page numbers? The publishers when they post an eBook listing use a print edition page number if they do put up a page number. That is incorrect. I have pointed out that page numbers can vary a lot based on the container for the book. So it's not an issue if an ePub is 100 pages less then the print version. Also, there can be the same sort of page number differences between a hardcover and a MMPB edition.
The rule to use the displayed page number in an eBook edition was put in place because before ADE/ePub, there was (other then PDF) no system in place that actually had proper page numbers and if there were page numbers, they changed based on the font size or were buggy and not reliable like with Mobipocket. But now we have reliable page numbers with ADE and as we know, ADE is the most used program for reading ePub and since most ePub is sold with DRM, you have to use ADE for those with DRM.
So what is the reasoning for sticking with a rule that was put in place when things were different then they are now? ADE is the most widely used program in the world for reading ePub. It has page numbers that work. Why not use them?
So, in other words, again you are saying Adobe's Digital Editions ebook reader/management is the standard. "ADE" still stands for "Adobe Digital Editions" and is only one piece of software in a huge lineup of products offered by Adobe to handle digital needs.I'll believe that ADE only can handle epub files when Adobe says that the epub file format they helped developed is no longer open source and is no longer cross-platform.
I'll believe Barnes and Noble nook uses Adobe's Digital Editions when Barnes and Noble says it does. They seem pretty convinced they have licensed permission to adapt ADEPT software from Adobe to handle nook books.
I'll believe Adobe's Digital Editions uses real, fixed format page numbers for epub files that don't contain real, fixed format page numbers when Adobe says it does.
I'll believe Adobe's Digital Editions is needed to read Adobe DRM protection when Adobe says it is.
As to what is based on Adobe products (including but not limited to ADE) and standards—I do believe that much of the prevalent DRM protections, the epub formats and technologies behind many ereaders were/are developed and licensed in whole or in part by Adobe and that even proprietary, copyrighted offshoots still are likely to use one or more Adobe products and content services.
I really do not understand why you feel with every product, software, and service Adobe licenses out that ADE is the only one in use, the only standard, or even where you are getting that ADE claims/does anything outside of what Adobe (the copyright holder and developer of ADE) says it does.
ADE will not work on all devices or operating systems that manage to use epub files; I'm not sure a claim by you that those systems don't matter is sufficient to satisfy the millions of goodreads members reading epub files without ADE.
Did you want to add back in your contention that only ADE can do library ebook loans?
I lost track of whether you did or did not think ADE reads epub files with fixed format page numbers this round of unsupported claims.
Are you kidding me about the date of the goodreads rule on ebook page numbers versus the date of epub and ADE being developed? (Hint: goodreads did not start until 2006 with a 2007 launch). Are we supposed to take your word for that over staff who wrote the durn thing?Just curious, which revision of the librarian manual do you think first mentioned publisher page numbers for ebook format? When do you think goodreads began librarian program? When was the manual first put in place?
Some facts to back up claims please. Might even want to check into staff resumes in case anyone might just possibly have some experience with all this new fangled technology and digital world of ebooks.
Keep in mind, too, when specifying dates that just because epub version 3.0 makes it easier to do fixed format page numbers, page numbers were possible before then. So take a guess and give us the supporting links to backup your claim. (White papers from developers holding copyright at the time are perfectly acceptable and still in many archives).
(And, please, no one argue that DRM protection information = book edition.)
Just curious, JsWolf, where do you think goodreads can obtain the ADE page numbers if ADE was ever considered the standard? What explanation do you suggest goodreads, who has repeatedly avoided doing database changes impacting existing member book catalogues, tell members who watch their stats shrink drastically because you want their pages read changed to ADE algorithm? Most members and groups are used to using publisher information or specifying specific editions and will not be happy to see page numbers changed to something they may not have access to or be willing to use whether or not you think it is standard.
What do we tell members who purchased and read ebooks who have never even heard of ADE much less used to convince them that they are imagining things and could not possibly have read the ebooks they claim without it? How do we explain that their files with a DRM from Overdrive, microsoft, mobipocket reader, apple, and everyone with a drm based on those or an adaptation/license of Adobe ADEPT standards (including Sony, Barnes and Noble, kobo, etc.) are not to be a part of the goodreads database whether or not epub? That the 140,000-160,000 word book they read as being roughly equivalent to 350 pages is just their imagination and the publisher is in error because JsWolf opened in his ADE software and believes it only to be a 200 page book of roughly 80,000-90,000 words and with nothing more than a screenshot of what he sees goodreads is making them convert?
They must all be wrong if you are right.
That's what I though Debbie - I was worried because I noticed that 1) these edits I mentioned existed, 2) They were altering pre-existing data, not adding it anew, and 3) It seems one librarian has made vast amounts of the same two edits. Would one of the PTB like the information because I have no interest in getting into an edit war with anyone!
Mod
I can actually see a member just downloading an ebook from a site or getting a free arc emailed to them directly from an author that wasn't showing on goodreads and when helpfully adding the book - because filename showed as epub or some other flavor file format - that they would type "epub", "pdf" "stanza" or something in because not familiar with goodreads standards. Either the file info or isbn should in that case tell us should be an ebook format.Librarians altering data a different issue. Like Emy, I always question in group or on a thread a more experienced librarian currently active on before undoing something another librarian did unless was against a librarian note (particularly if against a note or post from Rivka) or an obvious typo.
And brand/type of DRM or other copy-protection protocols, if even known, have nothing to do with the edition or format of an ebook.
rivka wrote: "Emy, go ahead and PM me that info, please, and I will take a look."Link sent. Thanks! Oh & Happy New Year!
Debbie (Debbie Rice) wrote: "I can actually see a member just downloading an ebook from a site or getting a free arc emailed to them directly from an author that wasn't showing on goodreads and when helpfully adding the book -..."Stanza no longer counts as it doesn't work properly on iOS 6.x and is not going to be updated. Besides, Stanza never did handle any form of DRM.
As for DRM, it does matter. No other program besides ADE can handle the DRM used by B&N and Adept DRM used by others. So if you buy an ePub eBook with DRM from say BooksOnBoard, no other software besides ADE can handle the DRM. You may be using an app like Bluefire Reader, but that app will be using ADE otherwise due to the DRM, there is no way at all to read that ePub. ADE (Adobe Digital Editions) is the only ePub reader that handle the DRM. Because of this, it's the number one used program to handle ePub. Every program/app that handles Adobe's DRM is using ADE code.
What I'd like to know is why can't the page number from ADE be used when it's the number one program that is used to handle ePub? It has to be used to handle ePub with DRM. The issue of changing the font size and the page number changes doesn't apply as ADE does not change the page number. The page number from the publisher is going to be 100% incorrect. So why not be more correct then incorrect?
Don't you think that is easiest put the ebook kind? Because, for example, an eBook for Nook have a number of pages that are always the same (you can prove it reading in the web your nook book), but Kiddle and the others have other legnths. So, I think that is best if we use that like an edition. If is a Nook Book, is a Nook Edition and the same with the others.That would make everything better, because if you have a copy of one of them, you can put the right copy. The same with the Goodreads stats.
Exactly the point. You can whine about ebook page standards until your blue in the face and your fingers fall off, staff has made their decision..end of story.
But there really is no discussion anyway since it's like talking to a broken record who just disregards anything that proves his theory is not accurate and proclaims it irrelevant.