Page 3 of 4

Re: Re-using recordings / catalog search

Posted: April 20th, 2019, 8:13 am
by silverquill
Quick question: Are anthologies, say of short stories, poetry or essays, drawn from different authors and sources then considered collections? What if they are from the same author, different sources, like the multi-volume Poe Raven Editions that we did? What would happen if the story titles were put in the key word section? I've seen projects with two key words and some with dozens! Does this relate to searchability?

Re: Re-using recordings / catalog search

Posted: April 20th, 2019, 3:17 pm
by Availle
The Raven Editions of Poe come from a single book (or rather: 5 different volumes). So no, no collection, as I pointed out above.
https://librivox.org/the-works-of-edgar-allan-poe-raven-edition-volume-1/

The keywords are not included in a search of the LV catalog itself.
If you go over to archive, keywords are being searched though.

Re: Re-using recordings / catalog search

Posted: April 20th, 2019, 5:25 pm
by msfry
Here are my thoughts based on what I've been hearing . . .

Numbers? Competition? That thought never crossed my mind!!!!! And since I've only been around 5 years to other members' 10 or 12 and I tend to record long chapters, there is absolutely no way I can ever catch up. Good thing I don't care about numbers! How many do I wonder? Wait . . . are there prizes?

And as to the prime directive, "acoustical liberation of books in the public domain", certainly the easier our pieces are to find, the more liberated they are. Let's don't hide anything under a rock that we can bring into the foreground, especially if it costs no more than flipping a toggle switch.

Thirdly, as it isn't wise to design a whole system around "lifeboat cases", e.g. rare cases, (Edgar Allen Poe is rarely the most extremely popular author, and how many readers would actually post their same recording in 5 places once it is findable by title?) And if we notice someone or many readers abusing the "liberation" program, just promoting themselves, it could be written somewhere not to do that.

Fourthly, lifting a chapter out of a titled book of essays, stories or poems, and adding it to a searchable Collection, with or without re-recording it, does NOT affect our book count. It just makes a story findable by title within the book.

And, and, and . . . . . to readers like me who listen to collections to discover new authors, ideas, info, and readers, this means of "cross-referencing" is VERY MUCH APPRECIATED. I may be looking for a story named "The Cow" and stumble into a world of wider subject material as well. LV delightfully widens my horizons, like no other audio source I know of. Why not capitalize on that unique asset?

For the record, I do occasionally run across LV books where each story in it is individually searchable, so it has been done. Here's one I came across recently:
Lord of the Housetops: Thirteen Cat Tales
https://librivox.org/lords-of-the-housetops-thirteen-cat-tales-by-various/

Very interesting discussion, so far. Much food for thought as LV grows and grows, evolving I suspect into more than was originally envisioned.

Re: Re-using recordings / catalog search

Posted: April 20th, 2019, 7:07 pm
by annise
The answers we are giving are based on the present software. My function is to use the present system and get the best results we can using it, and that's what we do. It's a pretty good system and runs well at little cost thanks to Archive.
So yes it's fine to discuss things it would be nice to be able to do, but it is not fine to continually complain and imply that somehow "they" are stupid and controlling - we aren't, we are volunteers too, and as I said before, we juggle things to keep everything usable.

We have said continually that we are not totally happy with the search as is, but it does work. And we have 1200 plus projects.
So if someone wants to start a suggestion box for future upgrades go ahead - just all be polite, remember this is an international site and watch what you say, it may offend someone with a different upbringing.

Anne

Re: Re-using recordings / catalog search

Posted: April 21st, 2019, 1:40 am
by moniaqua
williamjones wrote:
April 20th, 2019, 6:52 am
Q.E.D.
What did you want to proof?
williamjones wrote:
April 20th, 2019, 6:52 am
And, YES, allowing cross-posting of a recording in different Collections DOES assist in the Prime Directive: In one context (=project) browsing users will share common interests; while in another context, there will be different users with different interests -- thus the audience for a recording is expanded.
Little reminder:
LibriVox Objective

To make all books in the public domain available, for free, in audio format on the internet.
This is, as far as I know, the prime directive.
So, if we re-record a reading, the time for recording a new piece is lost in the first hand. If we were really, really strict, one could say that re-recording also of a piece read by a different reader works against the prime directive. But: a new reader who joins LibriVox in order to re-record a section he/she really loves, might stay and record "new" PD-texts and indeed the number of people who do that seems to be relatively high. This assists the prime directive. Also a reader who did first a chapter of a book for a collection and then records the whole book makes more text available.

Now, the big question is: Does a listener who finds one of the cross-referenced texts (and is happily listening) join LibriVox and record other texts? I think, probably not as there are even listeners who are not happy with a certain recording and still don't care to read.

Re: Re-using recordings / catalog search

Posted: April 21st, 2019, 4:46 am
by williamjones
The focus of these comments is "Searchability of section/chapter names".
Ava's comments on the LV Search function's failings will be addressed in another posting.
And, a third mini-essay will someday ensue concerning cross-posting of a recording.

As a project for the sake of discussion, take my project:
"The Complete Works of Brann The Iconoclast Volume 1"

Scenario 1:
Were I to find images (e.g., from the Baylor University Archives) of the individual pages of Brann's newspaper wherein are found the 47 sections of my Brann project and readers recorded them into a Collection, would THEN you (or whoever) turn on that "This is a Collection" toggle and allow the chapter titles to be found in a search?

Scenario 2:
Were I to find on Internet Archives a bundle of these newspaper page images, and create a Brann collection, would you flip that "Collection" toggle?

Scenario 3:
Were I to find on Internet Archives the images of the pages of a book containing the collection of these same articles and had them read into an assemblage of audio files, would you flip that toggle?

This last Scenario paints the circumstances of my Brann project.

All three Scenarios do the same thing:
They map Brann's individual articles into a set (a collection) of individual audio files.

The ultimate source is the same: Brann's texts.
The ultimate product is the same: a set of audio files in a one-to-one relationship with the set of Brann's articles.
I beg you (whoever you are) to follow the guidance in President Reagen's Berlin speech from June 1987: "LV Admin Team, Turn on that Toggle!" :wink:

Gertrude Stein might have wrote on a bar napkin: "A Brann article is a Brann article is a Brann article ... whatever the sequence of printings that brought them out of Brann's brain and onto newsprint and ultimately into LV audio files for posterity." On the other side of that napkin one finds "If it walks like a duck and talks like a duck, it's a duck."

Ava's conjecture that because the 47 chapters were sourced from a book and not from microfiche or digitized images of newspaper pages and therefore that my (and other similar) projects do not qualify setting the toggle to "Collection" doesn't hold water. Ava seems to say that if the Baylor University Archive newspaper images were passed before the eyes of my project's talented readers then it would be OK to flip that toggle to "Collection". Frankly that sounds ridiculous. The source is fundamentally the actual NEWSPRINT PAGES (not images) of Brann's newspaper. To extend Ava's logic to full extent would mean that all my reader's would have to transport themselves and their computers and microphones to Baylor University Library and record THERE from the crumbling, yellow historic newsprint paper.

Admittedly, Ava has brought up some really good points, but on the point of what source is adequate/permitted to create an LV COLLECTION project, she went off course. And the value of my project is lessened.


Another point from Ava's comments merits a reply. It has to do with whether Brann's section titled "The Cow" would actually be sought. Frankly, I agree with her that it is not likely to be something people will be looking for. BUT, consider the array below of other titles from Volume 1 of his collected works. THEY do seem attractive to being sought for:
==============================================
Thomas Carlyle
Victor Hugo
Tiens Ta Foi
Talmage
Seventh Commandment (Biblical reference)
Adam and Eve (Biblical reference)
Trilby (main character in novel by George du Maurier )
Charity
Christian England in India
Balaam's Ass (Biblical reference)
Potiphar's Wife (Biblical reference)
Platonic Friendship
Dogmatism
===============================================

I don't think Ava was suggesting the the mundane title (The Cow) canceled all merit in making the the project a searchable Collection. I think she was just jerking my chain a little. :lol:
I beg you (whoever you are) to follow the urgings of Horatius at the bridge: "LV Admin Team, Turn on that Toggle!" :wink:

Re: Re-using recordings / catalog search

Posted: April 21st, 2019, 6:51 am
by KIBBONAFIDE
Ava's conjecture that because the 47 chapters were sourced from a book and not from microfiche or digitized images of newspaper pages and therefore that my (and other similar) projects do not qualify setting the toggle to "Collection" doesn't hold water.

I’m not an admin or anything but I don’t agree that it doesn’t hold water. You have to draw a line somewhere, you know, and since this is a collection of audiobooks, I think criteria that starts with “what is inside the covers of a book” is rather reasonable. The Lovecrafts Influences and Favorites collection ( viewtopic.php?f=19&t=73555) that’s in process in the Short Works category is a great example of a Collection. Someone took an essay Lovecraft wrote where he cited a bunch of stories that he liked and this BC found the individual texts and comprised them into his own collection.

Editors’ work is often credited in audiobooks that LV produces. That editor, whether Brann himself or someone else, did the work of compiling those articles into a collection. If you were to do that with all the individual newspaper articles you would actually be doing that work. Then you could put the articles in any order you wish. As it currently sits, I think, if you tried, you would not be allowed to change the order of the sections because you would be expected to use the order that’s used in this specific publication of this collection of these articles. Do you disagree with that?

Now, I think you wanting these articles to be individually searchable is a valid ask and concern...I can certainly see it’s important to you and, maybe it can be done under this context but that’s between you and your MC to make that call. For the record, I do also think it would be neat but it’s not my call and I understand the current rationale.

Anyway I just think defining a work by what is inside the covers of a book is perfectly understandable.

Edited to state that I wasn’t an admin.

Re: Re-using recordings / catalog search

Posted: April 21st, 2019, 7:16 am
by DACSoft
williamjones wrote:
April 21st, 2019, 4:46 am
Ava's conjecture that because the 47 chapters were sourced from a book and not from microfiche or digitized images of newspaper pages and therefore that my (and other similar) projects do not qualify setting the toggle to "Collection" doesn't hold water....

… Admittedly, Ava has brought up some really good points, but on the point of what source is adequate/permitted to create an LV COLLECTION project, she went off course. And the value of my project is lessened....
I'm not an admin, just a volunteer reader and PL, but I disagree with your assessment. I thought Ava clearly described the difference between an LV Collection, and one that is not. As I have understood it, it's the source (not a collection) or sources (collection), identified in the project discussions that determine an LV Collection. Not that the source may be "The Collected Works of ...."

I'm the BC of a project. If I collect various newspaper articles (for sake of continuing the example) from various sources, verifying the copyright status and source (the article from which the reading was taken) of each article, and create a project from them, I've created an LV Collection. If I simply read from a source in which the "collection" was created and published by someone else, then I have not created an LV Collection.

Also read again the LV Objective a few posts back. The objective says nothing about"
Creating a first-class searching engine to the works produced by LV.
It may be a nice-to-have, but there's no need to recreate the wheel, especially with LV's limited resources. Let others, who have the expertise and resources, create a keyword search (like the Internet Archive has of LV's work) or a full content search, and let LV concentrate on producing audio.

FWIW,
Don

ETA: I was working (independently) on this post while the immediately prior one was posted. Great minds think alike! :)

Re: Re-using recordings / catalog search

Posted: April 21st, 2019, 3:28 pm
by ej400
williamjones wrote:
April 21st, 2019, 4:46 am
I'm just curious to understand what your suggesting here. Is it that you want more search results to appear when someone searches the catalog? Is it that you want people to be able to use the same recording in multiple versions of the same book? What's the suggestion? Or honestly, what is it your trying to make a point out of?

Re: Re-using recordings / catalog search

Posted: April 21st, 2019, 4:12 pm
by williamjones
DACSoft wrote:
April 21st, 2019, 7:16 am

I'm not an admin, just a volunteer reader and PL, but I disagree with your assessment. I thought Ava clearly described the difference between an LV Collection, and one that is not. As I have understood it, it's the source (not a collection) or sources (collection), identified in the project discussions that determine an LV Collection. Not that the source may be "The Collected Works of ...."
Don, I believe you have also posted a crytpic note about not understanding my use of "Q.E.D." -- perhaps you're not reading things carefully. REPEAT: "If it walks like a duck and talks like a duck it is a duck." A collection/assemblage/set of non-related articles *IS* a de facto COLLECTION. Ava's comments (which are to the contrary) don't hold water as I showed. Perhaps you can't understand the logic.

I'm the BC of a project. If I collect various newspaper articles (for sake of continuing the example) from various sources, verifying the copyright status and source (the article from which the reading was taken) of each article, and create a project from them, I've created an LV Collection. If I simply read from a source in which the "collection" was created and published by someone else, then I have not created an LV Collection. I'm betting that you don't grasp the inanity of what you've just written.

Also read again the LV Objective a few posts back. The objective says nothing about"
Creating a first-class searching engine to the works produced by LV.
It may be a nice-to-have, but there's no need to recreate the wheel, especially with LV's limited resources. Let others, who have the expertise and resources, create a keyword search (like the Internet Archive has of LV's work) or a full content search, and let LV concentrate on producing audio. This paragraph is irrelevant and not pertinent to the topic at hand. If you feel you must say something, at least try to speak to the topic on the table.

FWIW,
Don

ETA: I was working (independently) on this post while the immediately prior one was posted. Great minds think alike! :)

Re: Re-using recordings / catalog search

Posted: April 21st, 2019, 4:21 pm
by TriciaG
williamjones wrote:
April 21st, 2019, 4:12 pm
I'm not an admin, just a volunteer reader and PL, but I disagree with your assessment. I thought Ava clearly described the difference between an LV Collection, and one that is not. As I have understood it, it's the source (not a collection) or sources (collection), identified in the project discussions that determine an LV Collection. Not that the source may be "The Collected Works of ...."
Don, I believe you have also posted a crytpic note about not understanding my use of "Q.E.D." -- perhaps you're not reading things carefully. REPEAT: "If it walks like a duck and talks like a duck it is a duck." A collection/assemblage/set of non-related articles *IS* a de facto COLLECTION. Ava's comments (which are to the contrary) don't hold water as I showed. Perhaps you can't understand the logic.

I'm the BC of a project. If I collect various newspaper articles (for sake of continuing the example) from various sources, verifying the copyright status and source (the article from which the reading was taken) of each article, and create a project from them, I've created an LV Collection. If I simply read from a source in which the "collection" was created and published by someone else, then I have not created an LV Collection. I'm betting that you don't grasp the inanity of what you've just written.

Also read again the LV Objective a few posts back. The objective says nothing about"
Creating a first-class searching engine to the works produced by LV.
It may be a nice-to-have, but there's no need to recreate the wheel, especially with LV's limited resources. Let others, who have the expertise and resources, create a keyword search (like the Internet Archive has of LV's work) or a full content search, and let LV concentrate on producing audio. This paragraph is irrelevant and not pertinent to the topic at hand. If you feel you must say something, at least try to speak to the topic on the table.

FWIW,
Don

ETA: I was working (independently) on this post while the immediately prior one was posted. Great minds think alike! :)
William,

You are in violation the "Be Nice" forum policy. From the forum policies in our wiki:
Excessive and repeated un-niceness may result in your being asked to leave LibriVox.
  1. "Un-niceness" includes: personal attacks, abusive or offensive language, including profanity or obscenities (in the public forums or in PMs), excessive flaming, threats, and other things that would be considered NOT NICE by a reasonable person.
  2. "Being asked to leave" means: Violators of the Be Nice forum policy will be given three formal warnings. The second warning will come with a temporary ban from the forum. The third warning will result in a permanent ban.
Please bring down the tone of your posts.

Thank you!

TriciaG Be nice Warning

Posted: April 21st, 2019, 4:42 pm
by williamjones
Tricia,

I am very much committed to Librivox and learning to do a good job as a BC. At my age I am less inclined to suffer foolishness gladly. One type of foolishness is especially galling: responding to my inquiries and commentary with inanities rather than serious, intelligent offerings.

Re: Re-using recordings / catalog search

Posted: April 22nd, 2019, 12:49 am
by moniaqua
williamjones wrote:
April 21st, 2019, 4:12 pm
Don, I believe you have also posted a crytpic note about not understanding my use of "Q.E.D."
Hope it was you, who wrote the red part - the quoting is really bad.
No, as far as I see it was not Don who wrote about the q.e.d. at all. I answered related to this w.z.b.w. and I understand very well what q.e.d. should mean generally. Only, I really don't see how broadening the audience should help to the prime directive? For making all books in PD available as audiobook, we need reader. So, what exactly did you want to demonstrate?
williamjones wrote:
April 21st, 2019, 4:42 pm
At my age I am less inclined to suffer foolishness gladly.
:hmm:
williamjones wrote:
April 21st, 2019, 4:42 pm
One type of foolishness is especially galling: responding to my inquiries and commentary with inanities rather than serious, intelligent offerings.
:lol: Better not to answer at all? :wink:

Re: Re-using recordings / catalog search

Posted: April 22nd, 2019, 3:23 am
by williamjones
moniaqua wrote:
April 22nd, 2019, 12:49 am
:lol: Better not to answer at all? :wink:
Ja sicher, es wäre besser, wenn die geholtlos Antworten überhaupt nicht gekommen wären.

Re: Re-using recordings / catalog search

Posted: April 22nd, 2019, 4:50 am
by Availle
williamjones wrote:
April 22nd, 2019, 3:23 am
moniaqua wrote:
April 22nd, 2019, 12:49 am
:lol: Better not to answer at all? :wink:
Ja sicher, es wäre besser, wenn die geholtlos Antworten überhaupt nicht gekommen wären.
"Yes sure, it would have been better if those inane answers had not come at all."

Changing languages in order to take another swipe at the other people in this thread is not going to get you anywhere.
We have very few hard-and-fast rules, but we do take our "BE NICE" rule very seriously.

I suggest heeding Tricia's advice from above:
TriciaG wrote:
April 21st, 2019, 4:21 pm
Please bring down the tone of your posts.
Your next warning will be a formal one.