View as PDF not working
Tue, Jul 27 2010, 4:52AM
#2
RE: View as PDF not working
Like many others, I was hugely disappointed with the way the pdf
issue has been handled. I have been a monthly reader of Gramophone for
almost 25 years and am now trying to do a research project from a
remote location where a complete library collection is not available.
I had been counting on this archive ever since it was introduced. If
the issue is copyright of photos, why not make the pdfs a slightly
lower resolution so as to render the photos useless for commercial
purposes. That would be very simple to do. Google books allows us to
read the entire Life Magazine collection. The resolution is not so
good but everything is clear enough to see, and I cannot imagine anyone
trying to use those photos for anything. Or, the watermark? Why would
that not be sufficient to render a photo
useless for commercial purposes? I really do not understand.
I
also subscribe to Fono Forum and they post their entire 50 year archive
as downloadable pdfs for those who pay the subscription. They do not
have any problem with it. I note that many of the photos are a bit
blurry, so they seem to have dealt effectively with the problem that
somehow continues to vex and defeat the Gramophone staff.
This is
all I would need for study purposes. I know I am merely repeating what
has already been said earlier, so thank you for your patience.
Best, Herbert Pauls
Thu, Jul 29 2010, 10:37PM
#3
RE: View as PDF not working
Mr. Cullingford: Is reactivating Gramofile one among the alternatives you are exploring? Though the Gramophone site is not, thank the Lord, a people's republic, may I add a vote for that option?
Gramofile had its quirks, as everyone posting here knows, but it was a veritable Eden compared with the OCR swamp of the now pdf-free archive.
Please reinstate Gramofile.
Wed, Aug 11 2010, 11:33PM
#4
RE: View as PDF not working
This post may well be piling Pelion on Ossa in view of previous posts, but I really must echo almost everything that's been said. The 'Archive' is, for all practical purposes, useless to any serious Gramophone reader - and that must surely describe everyone who wishes to use it. I have just tried a search on 'Tennstedt' only to come up with no results! This may be a temporary aberration, but I strongly doubt it. Even if - a rather big if - the pdf problem is ever solved it is a sorry substitute for the disappearance of Gramofile, the existence of which was the deciding factor in my disposing of 40 years' copies of Gramophone magazine.
Is there any prospect whatever of Gramofile (or a usable equivalent) being reintroduced? I assume, in rather jaundiced fashion, that the reply will be along the usual anodyne lines of 'we are looking at this carefully', but would be very happy to be proved wrong.
Whilst the following has no direct bearing on the above, it does, I think, further illustrate the declining standards of the magazine's administration.Having bought Gramophone every month without fail for 40 years, I was pleased to be given the 'gift' of a subscription last Christmas. The first two months' copies did not arrive and the subscription office had to be called repeatedly. Delivery eventually started, but the introductory offer - heavily trumpeted every month - did not. There is no advantage that I can see in subscribing when I can pop into WH Smith and pick up a copy.
I appreciate this has been something of a personal rant, but I'm sure that it, and previous contributors, amply illustrate that what was previously a magazine which was regarded as an institution now looks as though it is being run from one.
JKH
Tue, Aug 17 2010, 12:42PM
#5
RE: View as PDF not working
Mr Cullingford: Is there any news yet please on your discussions about the View as PDF option status/watermarking etc?
It is still a highly frustrating experience trying to view the reviews and articles in their current error-riddled state, without the ads and images which made viewing the old PDFs such an unalloyed joy.
Bws,
Karafan
Sun, Aug 22 2010, 2:01AM
#6
RE: View as PDF not working
It seems that it's either silence or spin from the administration on this one which is very disappointing to all of us long term readers and collectors. Apart from not being able to look at some issues at all (for instance, try to look up the original review of Britten's own recording of the War Requiem - the whole issue isn't available!) the search facility is hopelessly inadequate. I still find myself resorting to a 1984 copy of the Gramophone Classical Catalogue as a starting point for many older recordings. Luckily I didn't get round to clearing out my collection which is complete back to 1967.
Tue, Aug 24 2010, 9:10AM
#7
RE: View as PDF not working
The archive page STILL says "able to read original pages as PDFs".
Is nobody taking note of this forum?
Tue, Aug 24 2010, 10:24AM
#8
RE: View as PDF not working
"Is nobody taking note of this forum?"
Apparently not. In a separate posting I complained last month about how long it was taking to get the current issue online in the archive. That was at the end of the first week in July. No reply. Now we are over three weeks into August and the September issue is still not available.
Wed, Sep 22 2010, 6:34PM
#9
RE: View as PDF not working
Let me make this as simple as possible: I am a subscriber and therefore pay for the content of the magazine ( and am very happy to do so).So why can't I have unfettered access to the archive as pdf's? Other publishers do this.
Wed, Sep 22 2010, 11:03PM
#10
RE: View as PDF not working
Let me also make this as simple as possible...
Since the archive stretches back to the year dot, we haven't always had the foresight to negotiate web reproduction rights to all of the content (particularly imagery). Displaying the entire archive on the web, whilst done with all good intent, was becoming an issue with a small number of the rights holders, and we decided to withdraw it until we could resolve the issue. We have been discussing ways of doing it technically by, for example, automatically pixellating the imagery whilst retaining the narrative, lowering the resolution, watermarking etc etc, but have no idea yet whether we can do this a) at all (to the satisfaction of all parties) or b) whilst absorbing the cost of doing so and keeping the archive free.
Does that answer the question?
Fri, Sep 24 2010, 2:41AM
#11
RE: View as PDF not working
You still don't have any idea whether solutions that have worked for other publications will satisfy the rights-holders you are trying to appease? Really? Have you tried actually to get some idea about it? It really does sound from all the posts from people at Gramophone that, basically, behind the scenes the website has been such a compounded disaster that your team has fallen apart from the pressure of having inadequate resources even to attempt to fix the fundamental problems and so you can't even do any work anymore or something. I mean why maintain the website at all when, without the pdfs, it just doesn't even work, in practical terms? If you don't have a decent amount of funding to do anything, at least just admit it and take the whole failed project off the web as a cost-savings that might (theoretically) allow you to spend some money on something worthwhile -- like getting a Gramofile 2.0 up and running! That's what everybody wants, not this broken, comprehensive failure of a website. Goodness knows it's a bitter pill to swallow but just get back on track already! Please! I think everybody is starting to get the sense that the magazine itself is dying (as in numerous comments in other threads about collapsed editorial quality in recent years), not just the website. If that isn't actually the case, you're shooting yourselves unnecessarily in the foot, prestige-wise, and that can create real problems for you if people give up on the Gramophone "brand" entirely - as I'm starting to do, for example.
Fri, Sep 24 2010, 10:11AM
#12
RE: View as PDF not working
While you would expect me to say this, I really am not sure I understand what you're referring to with regards to a failed project and the site not working. The Archive PDF function is one - though I appreciate well-liked - aspect of a large website, on which a substantial number of news stories, blog entries, features, reviews and a new chart are added every week. You may also have seen the recent launch of the Gramophone Player - bringing music in high sound quality to the site for the first time, a really very substantial project for us. All of this is the work of a number of dedicated colleagues and freelancers. That one aspect may have caused us, and you, unexpected and unfortunate disappointment (in the short term, as I and colleagues have stressed) is a shame, but I hardly think it constitutes the claims you are making, and might I also point out the Archive is - and remains for now - free.
Fri, Sep 24 2010, 10:53AM
#13
RE: View as PDF not working
This site does seem to attract a disproportionate amount of angry negativity over relatively minor issues or comments. I myself made the mistake of expressing a little enthusiasm a while back and you would have thought I was advocating higher bonuses for bankers judging by the reaction.
No, chill guys. Listening to music helps. (On the high bitrate Gramophone Player for instance).
Fri, Sep 24 2010, 3:07PM
#14
RE: View as PDF not working
Re JD's post ( #40), I realise the difficulty of content rights when a) a title has been in publication for a long time and b) has had a change of ownership along the way. And, yes, I do know how long it takes to properly scan and integrate material into a website- and time is money. Nevertheless, I would have thought that perhaps the last 10 years could be available which roughly equates to when Haymarket purchased Gramophone!
Fri, Sep 24 2010, 4:50PM
#15
RE: View as PDF not working
Nevertheless, I would have thought that perhaps the last 10 years could be available which roughly equates to when Haymarket purchased Gramophone!
No, In the year 2000 the archive would have been unthinkable, so it went unthought.
There seems to be little point in continuing this thread if all the contributions of the members are to be ignored. While I completely understand the language that has been used by editorial staff here, I do think that people are being spun a yarn.
The degree of unanimity within these posts should not be ignored, and attempts to palm members off with sympathetic responses which amount to 'the decision is made and that's that' simply aren't good enough.
I too parted with a huge collection of Gramophones upon discovery of the Archive. This collection was started by my grandfather, continued by my father, and was passed down to me. The value of that said collection, indeed, was reduced considerably because of the existence of the on-line access to the same material. With that access being now withdrawn, that collection is now again worth much more as a resource. Where is the compensation to long running subscribers to your magazine, investing huge sums of money over three generations. As I have said, weak statements of regret don't come close to dealing with this as an issue.
I feel very badly let down - that parties have been pandered to, to the disadvantage of your members. Your Archive is now next to useless for me; inaccurate OCR-produced texts don't hack it when the whole point of the Archive was as an historical record of a serious publication. The present Gramophone staff need to realise that for members to continue to regard this magazine as a serious publication, this matter will need speedy and satisfactory resolution.
I also do not appreciate having had to register to this site for a second time to have been able to post this reply, so there is clearly also a problem with your member lists.
John Bell