From: legg@nospam.magma.ca
On Sun, 7 Dec 2025 19:06:21 -0700, Don Y
wrote:
>On 12/7/2025 6:24 PM, Waldek Hebisch wrote:
>> Don Y wrote:
>>>
>>> I've learned to become less "discriminating" in my collections. As long as
>>> I can *read* the content, it's good enough for me (given that the
>>> alternative was *paper*!).
>>
>> Well, I can read low quality text, but I read faster if quality is
>> better. Sometimes it is hard to decide if there is a speck or
>> a dot (or comma, apostrophe etc) on a page. And if you scan
>> at larger quantity you probably do not want to proofread each
>> page, so either you have generous margin for possible disturbances
>> or you risk badly scanned pages.
>
>If I can find something, on-line, that has already been scanned,
>it saves me the trouble of destroying a book to chop it into
>individual pages and feed them through a scanner. So, I can
>spend THAT time scanning something that I *can't* find on-line.
>
>E.g., I'd rather spend time scanning copies of _Chronobiologia_,
>service manuals for various pieces of kit or other documents
>than scanning a bunch of research papers that I can download,
>regardless of their quality.
>
>My "library" is VERY big. Chances are, many of these "electronic
>versions of paper documents" will not be "opened", again, in my
>lifetime. *But*, I'd hate to be forced to choosing which to
>preserve (regardless of quality) and which to discard.
>
The best bet for preservation is probably to 'get it out there',
by making it available from as many independant sources as possible,
even if it means that some end up behind a pay wall.
The internet archive is good at preserving smaller files, so big
ones should be avoided. Often, they will only preserve a link to
a (vanished) location.
A meaningful, searchable and sortable title is also helpful, at
the earliest possible stages of file creation. Few will ever be
able to claim a DOI or ISBN reference.
RL
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
