Your question was answered, but I want to answer the questions you
didn't ask.
On 12/16/2015 12:07 PM, Jon Leech wrote:
[To] cut & paste all the data from an existing edition record for
another (duplicate) work/edition [...] is far more tedious effort than I
am (or I suspect, almost any other user of OL is) willing to put in
In general, sometimes projects are crazy in how they handle things. I'm
talking about any kind of project—open source, wiki-building, etc.
Sometimes someone comes in and says, "Hey, am I the only one who notices
how crazy this is?" For some of those projects, you get people who
respond by saying (or strongly suggesting) that the crazy process and/or
the generally sorry state of the project is like that on purpose, and
that no, they aren't really looking to "fix" it.
Then there are other projects where the suckage you run into isn't so
much intentional as it is a matter of it being in a sort of half-built
state. OpenLibrary falls into this category.
I just wanted to point that out, because I know that feeling of walking
into something, thinking that its deficiencies are because it's a Type B
project, before slowly figuring out what's really going on and realizing
that it's really because it's a Type A project.
OpenLibrary isn't a Type A project. But it's also basically unowned, and
barring someone stepping in and taking ownership of the existing backend
(or scrapping it and starting over), it's pretty much going to stay this
way. So I don't know if you can really take any in solace in knowing this.
In any case, I hope that helps.
--
Colby Russell
_______________________________________________
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
