> Rather than half-baked "lending" schemes targeted at a handful of U.S. > brick & mortar libraries, why don't we focus on data quality and community > building as our top priorities?
The lending scheme is actually available to people worldwide at this point and there have been some fixes to it recently that make it a lot more robust. It's very popular. I am not arguing with your general point that Open Library is starved of resources, but there's a bit of a long game in progress as I understand it. Part of the work in process involves being able to get grants to be able to increase funding to increase functionality. And yes, there are priorities issues at play here. I agree about not wasting the time of volunteers and I think some of the tools that could be more highly functional currently are not including - author merge and unmerge works unpredictably and people can break huge swaths of records with one poorly designed merge that can not currently be easily undone - search results pages for authors and items often reflect old data and there's no non-admin way to affec or changet this - OL's handling of accented characters is suboptimal The larger issue is that, while there are fractional resources being committed to this (and thank you for your work Anand), there does not seem to be a project manager or overall plan to have one and at the same time the site is large, open for business and attracting massive amounts of eyeballs and moving massive amounts of content. It's difficult in 2013 to make the case that you need more humans on a project that doesn't bring in revenue and that's the case that needs to be made. Jessamyn _______________________________________________ Ol-discuss mailing list - Ol-discuss@archive.org http://mail.archive.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ol-discuss Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/ol-discuss@archive.org/ To unsubscribe from this mailing list, send email to ol-discuss-unsubscr...@archive.org
