PBB's Website?

Currently they all get loaded into the files menu.

I was thinking of creating a place on my website to include all of the new items.  My website is focused on sharing free Christian resources that are available (legally) across the internet - so it would be a good fit.

Longer term there will be the ability to share them via some method that logos will come up with, but I'm not sure how long that will take?  Also, there will be some files which can be shared but not via that method.  logos have suggested/said public domain files that they provide in their library will not be shared with this method, or via this forum - which is fair enough.  However I think (someone correct me if I'm wrong), they did not "outlaw" sharing public domain books externally regardless of whether they can be purchased via logos.

If people think its a good idea I'll go ahead and set up a trial run.  It would be much easier for people to say what fields etc. should be filled in by setting it up well.  Regular contributors could have log on accounts so they could add them just as quickly as creating a post here (well almost).

Hi Steve,

The link is below.  I had a long period last year of not posting having been busy with life but am now "back into the groove" of adding items, though there is a need for a spring clean very soon (particularly the recommended box on page 1 - I'm not sure why some items are on there!  In fact I'll probably change that tonight!!!)

http://www.freechristianresources.org

DominicM said:

currently the list is maintined on the WIKI,

http://wiki.logos.com/User_Contributed_Personal_Books

pointless having multiple lists

Well, there is a point in having two: Stilltruth can list public domain PB's that compete with Logos resources, which we try to avoid doing here, but I agree that adding a third (fourth, fifth...) site is undesirable, unless everything there is also listed in one or both of the first two places.

I would be more interested in a topical listing than a mirror site.  MJ's wiki page is useful, but is in alphabetical order & like the forum will become unwieldy at some point.  Is there anyone who might be willing to take on a topical directory of the personal books on the files forum?

looks good Mark

Wow Mark that is great![Y]

I think having date added would be very useful to quickly see what you may have missed since your last visit.  Topic would also be useful, particularly for people that may want to be selective in what they add.

Thinking aloud, what is the merit of including the milestones info here?  Is it so that it shows the "quality" if the product?  If I see something I like the look of I wouldn't be put off by a lack of page numbers - although I guess also it might also highlight works that need a little more work to make them really good.

Mark Barnes said:

Interesting timing. I have just been experimenting with trying to see if the Wiki page can be improved - particularly if it grows. I've added a proof of concept, which I'd be glad for feedback on. In particular, three questions: is it needed? is it too complicated? are more fields needed (e.g. date added, topic, etc.)

http://wiki.logos.com/MBTest

Looks great, Mark. I'd be concerned that the time it takes to add a new entry (create a new page with all the right fields, and then add a link to it in the right table) will mean it won't get updated. Look what happened to our bug tracking database. I think it was just too complicated and time-consuming to keep up with it.

I've had no problem updating the list every week with all the new posts on Files, and others have been adding updates to it as well. I'm happy to have it organized into sections of Bibles, Monographs, whatever, if people think that would be more useful. I recognize that it might grow out of hand at some point, but my design was always only to have it be temporary until Logos gets the PB store online, since that will no doubt have better search and sorting features. I don't yet know whether it will allow people to post freebies, though. All they've said is they won't host anything that competes with public domain works they're selling. But they didn't say anything beyond that.

Let me also point out that on that Wiki page is a section for Personal Books in Progress or Suggested/Requested. If you're working on a PB that takes more than a day or two to finish, please add it there, so that several people don't waste time working on the same resource.

Mark Barnes said:

Rosie Perera said:

and then add a link to it in the right table) will mean it won't get updated.

The table updates itself. You just need to add the page with the right fields.

Well, OK, but it still seems more error prone and time consuming. However, if you want to do that go for it. I would hope you would convert the entire list I've created into your format (it would be bad to have two competing lists), and I would delete mine and bow out of being a major updater. I'd just add my own books in your format. Either method requires one major advocate to keep it going, even if a few others do occasionally add a title here and there. And either method is subject to the "weariness of the creator" disease. Once you or I get tired of it, it falls into disrepair. Mine might be easier for others to take over and keep up with if I get lazy and let it fall behind. Not sure about yours... (again, I cite the bug database as a classic example).

Still, yours is much easier to navigate and looks really spiffy. I might also suggest one more column for "Tradition" (or "Denomination"?), since most of the PB's posted thus far fit strongly into one or another particular tradition: e.g., Lutheran, Restoration Movement, Baptist, Seventh Day Adventist. People looking to pick up PB's might be looking for all the ones in a particular tradition.

NewbieMick said:

Rosie Perera said:

I might also suggest one more column for "Tradition" (or "Denomination"?), since most of the PB's posted thus far fit strongly into one or another particular tradition: e.g., Lutheran, Restoration Movement, Baptist, Seventh Day Adventist. People looking to pick up PB's might be looking for all the ones in a particular tradition.

I intended to say that I prefer my own suggestion above about a 'tag' column for both topic and denomination, for the simple reason that there's a limit to how many columns can fit into a page (plus it's slightly more flexible) -- but now I realize Mark has actually found a way to sort by column. I didn't know that was possible. It changes everything. So, yes, if there is a way to fit that many columns into the page I too now vote for a separate denomination column.

Super Tramp said:

I actually agree there should be one, all-inclusive repository of freely available PBB files. There should be multiple sites, each hosting the same collection. There will undoubtedly be denominational file collections that are hosted separately.

I totally disagree. I believe there should be mirror sites (plural), each hosting a comprehensive collection. When you have popular content you use a lot of bandwidth. Putting everything on one site is relying on one SysOp a little too much. What if s/he passes away? Will their spouse have any clue how to maintain the site? There are financial and time factors to be considered.also.  Ideally we need three sites mirroring.

One all-inclusive list (which is what I was trying to attain with the wiki list) is different from one all-inclusive repository. The list can point to files that are hosted in different places. I don't see bandwidth being an issue ever. Probably only a small percentage of Logos users ever will use PB's (even let's say 25% -- that's probably generous), and only a small percentage of those will be interested in downloading PB's that others have posted, and very few of those will download all of them -- they'll pick and choose based on their interests. And how many people are actually going to discover and want to download the same file on the same day, at the same minute? The chance of there being two or three users doing it at the same time is minuscule, and even then all the servers we host files on could handle that. We're not talking about hundreds or thousands of users wanting at these files 24 hours a day.

As long as people can still post the free stuff in the Files forum, we don't have to worry about any SysOp or anyone passing away or mirror sites. If people want to post their own stuff on their own websites, that's fine. Nobody is obligated to make sure the stuff they share will be available in perpetuity after their lifetime. If others grab it and mirror it elsewhere on the web, all the better. That's the beauty of the Internet. But I don't think we need to formally organize anything like that. Just having one central list that has links to all the known available PBB content around on the web should be sufficient.

It would be good to have a forum post in the Files section that was made a sticky that directed uploaders to edit the Wiki page to include their file.

Rosie Perera said:

One all-inclusive list (which is what I was trying to attain with the wiki list) is different from one all-inclusive repository.

I missed that technicality. But then we will have the issue of broken links.

Rosie Perera said:

As long as people can still post the free stuff in the Files forum,

There will inevitably be the conflict between Logos and competing public domain files.  If a user posts a public domain file today that Logos does not publish, that file will have to be removed when Logos does get around to publishing the resource. If there are links to outside access of competing files it would violate the spirit of the forum guidelines. I am not trying to throw cold water on the project, I just think it needs to eventually move off-site from Logos.com and include all PBBs people want to submit without regard to competition to Logos. It is the fair way for both parties.. 

As far as the bandwidth and site maintenance headaches; I had a friend who operated one of the USA's top 100 BBS's. Granted, the bandwidth back then was expensive and very choked but a human still has to attend to the server frequently. 

Mark Barnes said:

This is my concern. I'm certainly not volunteering to take over as editor. Unless someone who wants to maintain it thinks its a good idea, it will remain proof of concept only.