Marketing Folio Society Heritage
DiscussãoFolio Society Devotees
Entre no LibraryThing para poder publicar.
1English-bookseller
It seems to me that The Folio Society does not seem to value its publishing history as it should do. It has been in business many decades and has published some remarkable editions of famous books. I think of a favourite of mine - its Limited Edition of Dr Johnson's Dictionary - but there are so many others. You would have thought they would wish to make use of their impressive record of publishing such great books, some of stunning quality, inviting new buyers to take part in a great tradition.
The same criticism could be levied at Faber, OUP and CUP and a number of other leading publishers. The publishing industry seems all too ready to forget their past achievements
So why do publishers not try to build their reputation (their brand) by showing off what they have done the past?
The same criticism could be levied at Faber, OUP and CUP and a number of other leading publishers. The publishing industry seems all too ready to forget their past achievements
So why do publishers not try to build their reputation (their brand) by showing off what they have done the past?
2folio_books
>1 English-bookseller: It seems to me that The Folio Society does not seem to value its publishing history as it should do.
The bibliographies, ending (so far) with Folio 60?
The bibliographies, ending (so far) with Folio 60?
3GusLogan
>1 English-bookseller:
I don’t relly disagree with you, but I can see mgmt reasoning ”why spend marketing £s on books we’re not selling?”. Also, there’s always the risk that former glories look more impressive (and judging by some threads on here less ”literary”) than current offerings, which could be a bad look.
I don’t relly disagree with you, but I can see mgmt reasoning ”why spend marketing £s on books we’re not selling?”. Also, there’s always the risk that former glories look more impressive (and judging by some threads on here less ”literary”) than current offerings, which could be a bad look.
4terebinth
>1 English-bookseller:
Because it doesn't work for them financially in a time whose buzz-word is "relevant"? It's a word I no sooner see than I head for the hills from a learned expectation of grinding tedium if I don't. The FS, though, does have its occasional bouts of endeavouring to celebrate its history, not all of them very long ago - I vaguely recall one when they republished, was it a choice production from each decade? Flecker's Hassan, and maybe The Discovery of Tahiti, and... in any case, most or all of the books soon became sale fodder. I expect the history means little to most of today's company executives, but if there were much to be made of it from a marketing angle it would surely be more exploited.
Because it doesn't work for them financially in a time whose buzz-word is "relevant"? It's a word I no sooner see than I head for the hills from a learned expectation of grinding tedium if I don't. The FS, though, does have its occasional bouts of endeavouring to celebrate its history, not all of them very long ago - I vaguely recall one when they republished, was it a choice production from each decade? Flecker's Hassan, and maybe The Discovery of Tahiti, and... in any case, most or all of the books soon became sale fodder. I expect the history means little to most of today's company executives, but if there were much to be made of it from a marketing angle it would surely be more exploited.
5SimB
>1 English-bookseller:
To some extent they have with Folio 21 to Folio 60 bibliographies, with thoughtful introductions and essays setting the background to the FS and it's progress. Alas no Folio 70 arrived, perhaps because of financial woes. I know it was planned as I had some communication with the librarian a few years ago.
Depending upon enthusiasm it would be possible to make an unofficial Folio 70 within this group. I think the wiki has a list of all the books published. Just start after the last entry in Folio 60, and then create an entry for each book in a desktop publishing program with volunteers to make the entry for the book, conforming to the Folio 60 style. It's likely that most of these books are owned by at least someone in the group. Add some essays by long term contributors, and I think you would have nice niche e-book.
Any takers for this idea?
To some extent they have with Folio 21 to Folio 60 bibliographies, with thoughtful introductions and essays setting the background to the FS and it's progress. Alas no Folio 70 arrived, perhaps because of financial woes. I know it was planned as I had some communication with the librarian a few years ago.
Depending upon enthusiasm it would be possible to make an unofficial Folio 70 within this group. I think the wiki has a list of all the books published. Just start after the last entry in Folio 60, and then create an entry for each book in a desktop publishing program with volunteers to make the entry for the book, conforming to the Folio 60 style. It's likely that most of these books are owned by at least someone in the group. Add some essays by long term contributors, and I think you would have nice niche e-book.
Any takers for this idea?
6wcarter
>5 SimB:
Of the more than 2500 books published by the Folio Society, more than 1000 (40%) have been published since the completion of Folio 60. Folio 70 would have been a massive and expensive book if published in the same style.
Of the more than 2500 books published by the Folio Society, more than 1000 (40%) have been published since the completion of Folio 60. Folio 70 would have been a massive and expensive book if published in the same style.
7ranbarnes
>6 wcarter:
>5 SimB:
I would have hoped for a continuation volume, years 61 to say 75 in 2022/3. They might even consider republishing Folio 60!
But we do have much of the information on the wiki though, all we would need to do is expand the entries for 2007 onward. Include links to Dr Carter's Folio Archive entries where appropriate. Indexing would be the most difficult task, as it is currently by year, then alphabetical title. How easy is it to index wiki entries?
Production details, printers and binders are all in the books. Of course reprint information would be tricky.
>5 SimB:
I would have hoped for a continuation volume, years 61 to say 75 in 2022/3. They might even consider republishing Folio 60!
But we do have much of the information on the wiki though, all we would need to do is expand the entries for 2007 onward. Include links to Dr Carter's Folio Archive entries where appropriate. Indexing would be the most difficult task, as it is currently by year, then alphabetical title. How easy is it to index wiki entries?
Production details, printers and binders are all in the books. Of course reprint information would be tricky.
8Jayked
In fact an online bibliography was due to be published a couple of years ago, but never materialised. The Blundell booklet that I mentioned in another thread showed that numbers had already been allotted to books. Given the inefficiency of their IT people, perhaps it's better that they left it for someone else.
9CarltonC
On the 70th anniversary, there was a very small exhibition at the Victoria and Albert Museum entitled The Artful Book: 70 Years of The Folio Society, https://www.vam.ac.uk/event/b2NJZB2w/the-artful-book-70-years-of-the-folio-socie...
At about the same time, as >4 terebinth: says, they also republished some “heritage” titles, since I remember there was discussion of some of the books not having slipcases, as they didn’t originally. In addition to those noted, I think Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde, illustrated by Mervyn Peake, was one of the titles, as I had already bought it second hand; and there was a Fitzgerald title.
At about the same time, as >4 terebinth: says, they also republished some “heritage” titles, since I remember there was discussion of some of the books not having slipcases, as they didn’t originally. In addition to those noted, I think Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde, illustrated by Mervyn Peake, was one of the titles, as I had already bought it second hand; and there was a Fitzgerald title.
10ubiquitousuk
If you were going to lead a community made "Folio 75" it could be worth looking in to LaTeX rather than a traditional desktop publishing platform. Despite the learning curve,
It's free and open source.
The document could be edited collaboratively at overleaf.com.
LaTeX will produce great typesetting (with a bit of work).
Things like indexing and cross-referencing are incredibly robust in LaTeX.
It's free and open source.
The document could be edited collaboratively at overleaf.com.
LaTeX will produce great typesetting (with a bit of work).
Things like indexing and cross-referencing are incredibly robust in LaTeX.
11RogerBlake
>10 ubiquitousuk: it could be worth looking in to LaTeX
But it is *very* buggy.
I used Latex extensively over ten years to do an OU maths degree
and found it had at least a couple of minor bugs!
:-)
c.f. Word where I find many quite major bugs in pitifully simple documents :-(
I would have suggested the Folio Society should use Latex but I expect
they do it all by hand anyway!
But it is *very* buggy.
I used Latex extensively over ten years to do an OU maths degree
and found it had at least a couple of minor bugs!
:-)
c.f. Word where I find many quite major bugs in pitifully simple documents :-(
I would have suggested the Folio Society should use Latex but I expect
they do it all by hand anyway!
12abysswalker
>11 RogerBlake: warning: tangent.
Most of the publishing world uses software like InDesign for layouts now.
I use LaTeX extensively, and have for a very long time (Unix and CS background), and I am not sure I have ever found a legit bug in the core engine. There are lots of library incompatibilities, sure, but those are generally third party contributed extensions and hardly bugs.
Actually, almost everything I write now is LaTeX, or goes through a LaTeX translation step (most commonly markdown to LaTeX to pdf). Even my book wishlist, to return marginally to something on topic.
As a tangent to the tangent, LaTeX is Leslie Lamport’s system built around the TeX core, which was written by the great computer scientist Donald Knuth, who had a longstanding monetary bounty on bugs in TeX. Finding a bug was an accomplishment. (Anyone curious can do a web search for “Knuth check” for more details.)
No software is bug free, but to consider LaTeX to be very buggy is laughable.
Most of the publishing world uses software like InDesign for layouts now.
I use LaTeX extensively, and have for a very long time (Unix and CS background), and I am not sure I have ever found a legit bug in the core engine. There are lots of library incompatibilities, sure, but those are generally third party contributed extensions and hardly bugs.
Actually, almost everything I write now is LaTeX, or goes through a LaTeX translation step (most commonly markdown to LaTeX to pdf). Even my book wishlist, to return marginally to something on topic.
As a tangent to the tangent, LaTeX is Leslie Lamport’s system built around the TeX core, which was written by the great computer scientist Donald Knuth, who had a longstanding monetary bounty on bugs in TeX. Finding a bug was an accomplishment. (Anyone curious can do a web search for “Knuth check” for more details.)
No software is bug free, but to consider LaTeX to be very buggy is laughable.
13elladan0891
>1 English-bookseller: It seems to me that The Folio Society does not seem to value its publishing history...
Well, here is Tom Walker, the current FS publishing director, basically stating that FS of the past wasn't joyful and using the word "heritage" with scorn on his linkedin page:
"I define and lead Folio’s publishing strategy and programme, working with a great team to transform a heritage publisher into a joyful and desirable destination for book lovers around the world."
Well, here is Tom Walker, the current FS publishing director, basically stating that FS of the past wasn't joyful and using the word "heritage" with scorn on his linkedin page:
"I define and lead Folio’s publishing strategy and programme, working with a great team to transform a heritage publisher into a joyful and desirable destination for book lovers around the world."
14ubiquitousuk
>12 abysswalker: Glad to find another aficionado. I think I am going to try a proof of concept in LaTeX and we'll see how things work out.
Edit: et voila:
Edit: et voila:
15GusLogan
>13 elladan0891:
That’s... I... I’m not joyful.
That’s... I... I’m not joyful.
16SimB
>14 ubiquitousuk:
Wow, exactly what I had in mind! So maybe a yearly supplement for each year since 2006 in this style is achievable. I know this is a
"proof of concept" but it looks fantastic.
Wow, exactly what I had in mind! So maybe a yearly supplement for each year since 2006 in this style is achievable. I know this is a
"proof of concept" but it looks fantastic.
17English-bookseller
deleted
18Willoyd
I know absolutely nothing about this, but I wonder if a crowd-funded book via somebody like Unbound would work? I have a copy of Folio 60, and use it all the time = so much so it sits on my 'immediate reference' shelf next to my desk, alongside other basic essentials like my shorter OED, Flight Identifications of Raptors and International Orienteering mapping standards!
>13 elladan0891:
Ouch! In one sentence, he has managed to sum up everything that's going wrong with the FS from my perspective, typified not least by the appalling and joyless corporate-speak.
>13 elladan0891:
Ouch! In one sentence, he has managed to sum up everything that's going wrong with the FS from my perspective, typified not least by the appalling and joyless corporate-speak.
19ubiquitousuk
>16 SimB: I wrote some general purpose macros for including the books and indexing so it's actually quite quick. This example took less than an hour, including all set up overhead and now it's just a few seconds to add an entry.
My next step is to look at setting it up to automatically read the entries out of a spreadsheet. Then it should be fairly straightforward to crowd-source the writing of the entries using a Google Docs that everyone can edit. That would probably be more user friendly that having people work directly with the LaTeX code.
>18 Willoyd: there are plenty of services where you can get a one-off print of a book made (in the UK I use doxdirect). It won't be smyth-sewn, etc. But it should suffice for reference.
My next step is to look at setting it up to automatically read the entries out of a spreadsheet. Then it should be fairly straightforward to crowd-source the writing of the entries using a Google Docs that everyone can edit. That would probably be more user friendly that having people work directly with the LaTeX code.
>18 Willoyd: there are plenty of services where you can get a one-off print of a book made (in the UK I use doxdirect). It won't be smyth-sewn, etc. But it should suffice for reference.
20elladan0891
>14 ubiquitousuk: Looking good!
21cronshaw
>13 elladan0891: >18 Willoyd: Indeed what joyless corporate-speak. Palmyra overrun by a bean-counting Taliban. Those who do not appreciate heritage are wont to destroy it.
22folio_books
Mensagem removida pelo autor.
23folio_books
After the intervention of someone whose opinion I greatly respect, I've deleted my previous message, which was not very complimentary about Tom Walker. I love the Folio Society. Let it end there.
24Joshbooks1
>23 folio_books: A con of being a moderator. I didn't read your message but presumably, unlike the facebook group, I'm guessing a lot of people on this board would have similar sentiments.
26abysswalker
>14 ubiquitousuk: very nice. May I suggest moving the year section header above the \twocolumn directive? That will probably result in aligning the top of both column text boxes.
27abysswalker
Also if you like the footnotes per page to be outside of the column layout, that is the default with the multicol package (and is otherwise sort of a hassle to accomplish, if memory serves).
...
\usepackage{multicol}
...
\begin{document}
...
\begin{multicols}{2}
% columned content ...
\end{multicols}
...
28Willoyd
>19 ubiquitousuk:
Thanks - I hadn't thought of that; could certainly go down that route for a one-off personal copy. I was thinking more of a book that people might want to buy. I suppose it depends on how many people would want copies. I've currently got a prospective publication on order through Unbound, so will be interested to see what the quality is when it arrives.
Thanks - I hadn't thought of that; could certainly go down that route for a one-off personal copy. I was thinking more of a book that people might want to buy. I suppose it depends on how many people would want copies. I've currently got a prospective publication on order through Unbound, so will be interested to see what the quality is when it arrives.
30AHub
It seems to be that all this is being a bit hard on poor Tom Walker. Or at least reading a lot into a LinkedIn tagline.
For example, from my perspective I fail to see any 'scorn' when he refers to heritage publishing in his blurb. Yes, he implies that it needs to be transformed, but that does not entail he has a retrospective critique or denial of Folio's achievements and value prior to his tenure.
As for it representing 'soulless' corporate language I would consider myself lucky to work for someone where an ethos of creating something 'joyful' and 'desirable' for 'book lovers' represented the epitome of the soulless. Moreover, what would you be expecting from a LinkedIn blurb, isn't it all about profressional credentials? Should we be judging Walker's approach on a single sentence; I know there's more to it than that but he just may have a more nuanced take on all this than that sentence allows.
And maybe (but only maybe) it's also worth mentioning at this point that folks here are stereotyping the three thousand members of the Facebook group based on those that post the most. Yes, the medium is more suited to the visuals of shelfies and such, and yes, it could do with more depth, but those of us who frequent it needn't be presumed to be of a single opinion when it comes to the direction of Folio, in much the same way as those of this group shouldn't. Maybe it will grow into something more balanced, given the chance and input from those who'd appreciate it. Or maybe it won't. Even so, there aren't two different 'camps' playing out in this scenario. It seems to me that many people in both groups value the choice of publications on both sides of the heritage divide.
Anyway, I hope I don't seem argumentative as that's not my intention. Have an enjoyable weekend folks, with ample time for reading.
For example, from my perspective I fail to see any 'scorn' when he refers to heritage publishing in his blurb. Yes, he implies that it needs to be transformed, but that does not entail he has a retrospective critique or denial of Folio's achievements and value prior to his tenure.
As for it representing 'soulless' corporate language I would consider myself lucky to work for someone where an ethos of creating something 'joyful' and 'desirable' for 'book lovers' represented the epitome of the soulless. Moreover, what would you be expecting from a LinkedIn blurb, isn't it all about profressional credentials? Should we be judging Walker's approach on a single sentence; I know there's more to it than that but he just may have a more nuanced take on all this than that sentence allows.
And maybe (but only maybe) it's also worth mentioning at this point that folks here are stereotyping the three thousand members of the Facebook group based on those that post the most. Yes, the medium is more suited to the visuals of shelfies and such, and yes, it could do with more depth, but those of us who frequent it needn't be presumed to be of a single opinion when it comes to the direction of Folio, in much the same way as those of this group shouldn't. Maybe it will grow into something more balanced, given the chance and input from those who'd appreciate it. Or maybe it won't. Even so, there aren't two different 'camps' playing out in this scenario. It seems to me that many people in both groups value the choice of publications on both sides of the heritage divide.
Anyway, I hope I don't seem argumentative as that's not my intention. Have an enjoyable weekend folks, with ample time for reading.
31ubiquitousuk
I have now a more fully developed proof of concept PDF of "Folio 75", which can be downloaded here (only two years included so far): https://drive.google.com/file/d/1pNg9kCfaXcrjH2xl2bb9cfpBkgoYmbMs/view?usp=shari...
I happily take suggestions about formatting or content (at the moment, the content is drawn straight from wcarter and folio_books' Complete List of Publications).
The code is structured so that it is fairly straightforward to include illustrations. But I have so far refrained from doing that because I wanted to focus on getting the bibliography up and running and because I want to do things in a copyright-safe way if people are going to be interested in printing this, etc.
One place where people could help, if there's appetite, would be to flesh out the italic commentary that appears under some entries. Interesting notes to have here might be information about a series to which books belong, cross-references to Folio 60 entries for earlier editions of the same book, notes of interesting details about a book or its production, etc. All that data could be put in the "Notes" column of the spreadsheets here (please don't edit the other columns unless you know what you're doing with LaTeX):
2020: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/14gAYQoYiJUgMPDPvywkOiQyz6ExQC7aZvwr-GLt3...
2019: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1K3h_Uh1-_KSeY34tGYd14ZdyZjxj7eJ4BIp7fxpY...
Also, if you do contribute, drop a note here so I can include you in the list of contributors!
If the proeject gets off the ground then I suppose it might also be good to have a couple of interesting introductory essays from the community.
I happily take suggestions about formatting or content (at the moment, the content is drawn straight from wcarter and folio_books' Complete List of Publications).
The code is structured so that it is fairly straightforward to include illustrations. But I have so far refrained from doing that because I wanted to focus on getting the bibliography up and running and because I want to do things in a copyright-safe way if people are going to be interested in printing this, etc.
One place where people could help, if there's appetite, would be to flesh out the italic commentary that appears under some entries. Interesting notes to have here might be information about a series to which books belong, cross-references to Folio 60 entries for earlier editions of the same book, notes of interesting details about a book or its production, etc. All that data could be put in the "Notes" column of the spreadsheets here (please don't edit the other columns unless you know what you're doing with LaTeX):
2020: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/14gAYQoYiJUgMPDPvywkOiQyz6ExQC7aZvwr-GLt3...
2019: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1K3h_Uh1-_KSeY34tGYd14ZdyZjxj7eJ4BIp7fxpY...
Also, if you do contribute, drop a note here so I can include you in the list of contributors!
If the proeject gets off the ground then I suppose it might also be good to have a couple of interesting introductory essays from the community.
32ranbarnes
>31 ubiquitousuk:
This is very impressive, and would be a valuable addition.
Some things to think about / discuss:
Folio 60 includes printer / binder / typesetting info, which is also indexed. I like having that info, we could add via a dedicated field? I would be happy to start adding.
All indexing in Folio 60 is to the allocated book number, not page number, but that would be very tricky to maintain, since we don't have access to Folio's records, so probably indexing to page number as in the proof of concept would be better.
Price - this has been discussed for the wiki before, Dr. Carter's point is that there are different prices for different territories is still valid, and it was not included in Folio 60. I think this is for a separate record anyway.
This is very impressive, and would be a valuable addition.
Some things to think about / discuss:
Folio 60 includes printer / binder / typesetting info, which is also indexed. I like having that info, we could add via a dedicated field? I would be happy to start adding.
All indexing in Folio 60 is to the allocated book number, not page number, but that would be very tricky to maintain, since we don't have access to Folio's records, so probably indexing to page number as in the proof of concept would be better.
Price - this has been discussed for the wiki before, Dr. Carter's point is that there are different prices for different territories is still valid, and it was not included in Folio 60. I think this is for a separate record anyway.
33ubiquitousuk
>32 ranbarnes: thanks!
Regarding indexing: yes, I wanted to have the index point to book numbers rather than pages. At the moment I am using LaTeX's in-built indexing functionality. Pointing the index to book numbers requires some custom work and I haven't figured out how to do it yet. But I am working on that and it should work independently of whatever is in the spreadsheets.
Regarding printing/typesetting/etc details: yes, I think it would be good to have it if we can source that information. For technical reasons, it's a bit inconvenient to have more than 9 fields in the spreadsheet. Currently, there are 8 (6 if we won't have illustrations), so there is room to add a field for that kind of information if we want it. I think it's also possible to combine some of the existing fields (for example, dimensions could be part of the main description) if wee need to free up some columns for other purposes.
The main thing is that each field is an independent unit of data that can be manipulated separately. So, for example, it would be easy to produce a list of titles because there's a field containing only titles, but it would be difficult to automatically pull out a list of page counts because theose don't currently have their own field. Likewise, if we wanted to produce a version without the notes we could easily turn them off because they are in a separate field. Also, I can apply formatting to a whole field (e.g., the document is set to typeset the titles in capitals). So the question is: is there some value to having the printing/typesetting/etc information in its own field, or would it make more sense to include that information in the main description of the book?
I don't actually have a copy of Folio 60. Could you also give some guidance on how the design details get typeset in each entry?
I feel ambivalent about price. Again, if it had its own field we could turn it on and off to taste. But that would use up a valuable column that might be needed for something else.
Regarding indexing: yes, I wanted to have the index point to book numbers rather than pages. At the moment I am using LaTeX's in-built indexing functionality. Pointing the index to book numbers requires some custom work and I haven't figured out how to do it yet. But I am working on that and it should work independently of whatever is in the spreadsheets.
Regarding printing/typesetting/etc details: yes, I think it would be good to have it if we can source that information. For technical reasons, it's a bit inconvenient to have more than 9 fields in the spreadsheet. Currently, there are 8 (6 if we won't have illustrations), so there is room to add a field for that kind of information if we want it. I think it's also possible to combine some of the existing fields (for example, dimensions could be part of the main description) if wee need to free up some columns for other purposes.
The main thing is that each field is an independent unit of data that can be manipulated separately. So, for example, it would be easy to produce a list of titles because there's a field containing only titles, but it would be difficult to automatically pull out a list of page counts because theose don't currently have their own field. Likewise, if we wanted to produce a version without the notes we could easily turn them off because they are in a separate field. Also, I can apply formatting to a whole field (e.g., the document is set to typeset the titles in capitals). So the question is: is there some value to having the printing/typesetting/etc information in its own field, or would it make more sense to include that information in the main description of the book?
I don't actually have a copy of Folio 60. Could you also give some guidance on how the design details get typeset in each entry?
I feel ambivalent about price. Again, if it had its own field we could turn it on and off to taste. But that would use up a valuable column that might be needed for something else.
35Jayked
Whatever their intentions are, Folio had got as far with their online Biblio as allotting numbers to books. If they've given up om the publication, perhaps they wouldn't mind sharing the numbers, as two conflicting sets wouldn't be helpful to anyone. JWB gave the numbers for LEs up to 2017 in his booklet for The Private Library, running from 1358 for Hamlet (2007) to 2079 for Hansel and Gretel (2016)
36ranbarnes
Ah, >34 N11284: has beat me to it.
I had just asked folio_books if he could scan a couple of pages.
We could lose the limitation column, put that in the notes for limited editions, and use the column for printing / binding / typesetting info?
I had just asked folio_books if he could scan a couple of pages.
We could lose the limitation column, put that in the notes for limited editions, and use the column for printing / binding / typesetting info?
37ubiquitousuk
>34 N11284: thanks!
>35 Jayked: yes, for now we just have the books numbered in the sequence they appear. It would be trivial to have a column in the spreadsheet with the "official" Folio numbers and then use those instead, but it would require them to be willing to share the numbers... An alternative would be to just accept that this document has its own, unofficial numbers that could be referred to as "Community folio 123" or similar.
>36 ranbarnes: Sure, repurposing the limitation column is fine if everyone is happy with that information moving into the notes (or into the main description)
.
>35 Jayked: yes, for now we just have the books numbered in the sequence they appear. It would be trivial to have a column in the spreadsheet with the "official" Folio numbers and then use those instead, but it would require them to be willing to share the numbers... An alternative would be to just accept that this document has its own, unofficial numbers that could be referred to as "Community folio 123" or similar.
>36 ranbarnes: Sure, repurposing the limitation column is fine if everyone is happy with that information moving into the notes (or into the main description)
.
38folio_books
>36 ranbarnes: I had just asked folio_books if he could scan a couple of pages.
Message received and scans made but by the time I got back here >34 N11284: had beaten me to it. If >37 ubiquitousuk: would like to see the scans anyway, PM me and I'll get them to you.
Message received and scans made but by the time I got back here >34 N11284: had beaten me to it. If >37 ubiquitousuk: would like to see the scans anyway, PM me and I'll get them to you.
39folio_books
ranbarnes has suggested I upload the scans anyway, so here they are. Three consecutive pages from Folio 60 showing the start of 2006, the last year covered. They're a bit big! Hope they help.
40ubiquitousuk
>38 folio_books: Thank you, this is helpful.
41U_238
What an amazing endeavour! Happy to see it taking shape; I think it would accelerate even more some of the enablement present in so many discussions.
I hope it's okay for me to suggest, should we make this its own thread? I imagine most people would not know to find it here; I was not even interested in this specific thread, and only stumbled upon this discussion when I finally got curious enough to see what it's about.
Which, by the way, to the original topic, I don't think strategically it's in a business' best interest to say "Hey, look at all the good products we used to make."
I hope it's okay for me to suggest, should we make this its own thread? I imagine most people would not know to find it here; I was not even interested in this specific thread, and only stumbled upon this discussion when I finally got curious enough to see what it's about.
Which, by the way, to the original topic, I don't think strategically it's in a business' best interest to say "Hey, look at all the good products we used to make."
42ubiquitousuk
>41 U_238: good suggestion, I created a dedicated thread https://www.librarything.com/topic/329757
