Live data from Hacker News

Standard Ebooks

standardebooks.org

21–30 of 158 posts

Re: Standard Ebooks

#21

For other curious HNers, what differentiates [0] them from Project Gutenberg [1] is the improved typography/styling and the full usage of modern reader techniques. Think of it like, etext != ebook. [0] https://standardebooks.org/about/what-makes-standard-ebooks-... [1] https://www.gutenberg.org

So why don’t they contribute these things back to Project Gutenberg? Particularly the typography ones like curly quotes and proper dashes, as those are almost always corrections where the overly-ASCII Gutenberg source doesn’t match the original.

Like PG, our editions are blends of other editions, along with our own updates. Often our edition winds up looking nothing like the PG edition, for example when we combine volumes, extract footnotes into endnotes, remove pagination, and so on.

So submitting back to PG would be more like replacing a PG edition, instead of updating it; and I doubt the original PG submitter would like it if their hard work was simply replaced by someone else who thought their version was an improvement.

Our volunteers do sometimes submit typos they find back to PG. We don't require that, so some producers do, and others don't.

Re: Standard Ebooks

#22
post #9

Editor-in-Chief here, happy to answer any questions! Of interest might be my blog post on how SE runs on a small VPS using classic web tech: https://alexcabal.com/posts/standard-ebooks-and-classic-web-... (This post is slightly out of date as there is a database now; but it's used for managing Patrons - and soon a cover art listing and approval system - not for serving the actual ebooks, which are still served as des…

Do you have any thoughts on providing manually pre-formatted PDF files? Em-dashes, curly quotes, etc. are all nice, it's a step in the right direction, but in the end the EPUB file needs to be interpreted by the ebook reader on the fly and in terms of typesetting quality the outcome is far from what physical books provide, since you still get orphans, weird hyphenations, ugly/misaligned chapter titles. For me, nothin…

That's a common request but there are no plans to officially offer PDFs. We offer a variety of reflowable file formats, and each format is more burden to maintain; since PDF is a famously difficult format, maintaining it would be even more burden. A reader requiring a PDF can use a tool to convert any of our files to PDF. That's basically what we'd do at the end of the day, anyway.

There's been some mailing list chatter lately on how to best format PDF editions, but that's not being pursued on a project level.

Re: Standard Ebooks

#23
post #9

Editor-in-Chief here, happy to answer any questions! Of interest might be my blog post on how SE runs on a small VPS using classic web tech: https://alexcabal.com/posts/standard-ebooks-and-classic-web-... (This post is slightly out of date as there is a database now; but it's used for managing Patrons - and soon a cover art listing and approval system - not for serving the actual ebooks, which are still served as des…

You could probably drop the server and use Cloudflare Pages and a SSG. I use Astro for https://sabine.press/ Edit: oh and Lambda for a total of 2 server functions

Well, the point is not to jump at the new-fangled tech and AWS cloud lock-in :)

Re: Standard Ebooks

#24

I wonder if a scan -> OCR -> LLM proofreading pipeline is possible?

As a first pass I'm sure it'll save some effort (i.e. l -> 1 in some fonts). I can't imagine it fully replacing and editing/proofreading passes.

Re: Standard Ebooks

#26
post #16

I would love if they offered a download option for a file you could just upload to Lulu (or similar service) to have it printed and mailed to you. Every time I buy one of these public domain books from Amazon, they are invariably shitty, low-quality "printed by Amazon" versions. I miss the time where you could get a high-quality hardcover, but more and more those seem reserved only for the current week's NYT best-sel…

I've considered running a campaign to finance a print run of some of our (SE's) books. But the fact is that it's just so easy to find super cheap paper copies of these books almost anywhere. As long as you buy a copy that was printed before, say, 2005 - or from a reputable publisher like Oxford or Penguin - then the edition will already be pro quality. (After that, it's much more likely that you're buying a print-on-…

I think you might be underestimating the value-add---at least based on the existence of this thread! Yes quality copies are out there, but easy to find for the Editor-in-Chief of Standard Ebooks doesn't mean easy for everyone. I suspect plenty of people would find a trusted, no hassle source for a quality print copy worthwhile, just for the simplicity and convenience. Though I totally respect not wanting to waste ink and kill trees reprinting something that's already widely available.

Re: Standard Ebooks

#28
post #25

Very cool project. Does anyone know of something similar for audiobooks?

Any audio recording will have its own copyright separate from the base text, so it'll be a while before any quality audiobooks enter the public domain.

For now, your best approach would be to take high-quality ebooks like what Standard Ebooks offers, and use text-to-speech software.

Re: Standard Ebooks

#29
Standard Ebooks is fantastic! In fact, I love what they're doing so much that I actually built a little SaaS product on top of their ebook collection.

The site is called Modern Serial, and it lets you read books from Standard Ebooks in 10 minutes a day as Substack-style email newsletters.

https://modernserial.com/

Re: Standard Ebooks

#30
post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So why don’t they contribute these things back to Project Gutenberg? Particularly the typography ones like curly quotes and proper dashes, as those are almost always corrections where the overly-ASCII Gutenberg source doesn’t match the original.

Like PG, our editions are blends of other editions, along with our own updates. Often our edition winds up looking nothing like the PG edition, for example when we combine volumes, extract footnotes into endnotes, remove pagination, and so on. So submitting back to PG would be more like replacing a PG edition, instead of updating it; and I doubt the original PG submitter would like it if their hard work was simply re…

Yeah, I was just looking through A Christmas Carol and observed a handful of editorial changes in the commits https://github.com/standardebooks/charles-dickens_a-christma...> (bran-new → brand-new, frouzy → frowzy, and “Lowercase some gratuitously uppercased words”). Frouzy → frowzy I’m mildly in favour of. Ditching bran-new definitely loses character (he omitted the d on purpose!). One or two of the lowercased words were mildly strange capitalised (e.g. Idol was inconsistent with the previous paragraph); but the lowercasing of many introduces broad stylistic inconsistency, and direct local inconsistency sometimes; and most of the capitalisations were not gratuitous. In fact, more than a few were clearly to be pronounced, as a form of emphasis (e.g. Poor, One, Us); and some were distinctly proper nouns in the context, the removal of which increases the parse difficulty (e.g. One¹, /(Cold )?(Roast|Boiled)/); and some reflect customs still common or even preferred in their domains (e.g. Act, Angelic, Apostles, Star). I just reckon that commit should be reverted, because from my perspective it’s mostly actively bad, and the rest subjective. I’m curious what your reaction is to my opinion here.

But yes, I see that you’re practising some editorial oversight and not aiming to faithfully represent the original in all regards, which I gather is more generally Project Gutenberg’s goal; and this would obviously contraindicate upstreaming.

On the other hand, when it comes to more stylistic matters, I tend to wish Project Gutenberg had more consistency. There’s too much gratuitous variation in presentation and ridiculous 256-colour backgrounds. It’s often too obvious much of it is the work of a group of individuals rather than a coherent effort.

I’m curious about the footnote-to-endnote thing, because I’m not sure how the various formats in question handle them all, but in print endnotes are almost always just awful. If anything, I’d be expecting to replace endnotes with footnotes. (Me, I’m partial to sidenotes.)

—⁂—

¹ Hickory dickory dock, three mice ran up the clock; the clock struck one, and has been charged with assault and battery.

Post reply on HN