Scans Not Being Credited Properly

[slider1983]

Rather than repeat myself: Post 40 https://www.oldgamemags.com/forum/index.php?topic=125.30

This is only becoming a problem because me and Nipedly aren't getting credited for our work. Not sure if there's a way to fix this but the constant lack of communication by Kiwi isn't helping.

I also don't understand why fixed scans or scans I already sent in are being rescanned?

[Kiwi]

Okay, I am going to break this down to pieces so there is no ambiguity around ANYTHING here ...

1. I can't remember your particular scans of the Gamesmaster issues in question other than that they had blurred spines which caused issues with a few pages where the text was printed very close to the inner edges. It may be that and the fact I had these particular issues meant I was happier waiting until I had an opportunity to scan my physical copies instead. Not sure given the length of time and the fact my 5650c died and I had to expend considerable effort learning how to get it working again.

2. I have always stated if a document scanner version is available it is preferable to the flatbed scanned version for the reason stated above. Additionally a better version is going to replace an existing version so we have the best version available. kitsunebi has submitted several magazines that were higher quality than ones I submitted and I have happily replaced my versions with his. I have no problem with this at all.

3. The OGM website has been remade several times in the 13 odd years of its existence. The WordPress site got hacked, Drupal was painful to add content to, same with Joomla and finally SMF which I currently use. Due to having to rebuild the site from the ground up EVERY TIME and given I am a one man band I have not had the time to try and work out exactly who submitted what. Jason submitted hundreds of PC Powerplay issues for example and I haven't been able to determine which of us scanned a particular issue but not once have I heard him complain about the situation as he knows I am under the pump trying to keep the site running and add new content as soon as I can. Nipedley hasn't complained once about the situation either. Which brings us to you ....

4. You have a propensity to complain and/or make inflammatory comments at times. Part of the reason for "radio silence" as you put it is because sometimes it's easier on my psyche to say nothing at all as I don't like fueling whatever it is that irks you at any given time. Public commenting like this is really uncomfortable for me but your comments in the new releases thread deserved a reply.

5. If you have an issue with how I run the site you, or anyone else doesn't like it, knows where the door is. No-one is begging someone to stay just they aren't begging someone to leave.

6. It takes up a LOT of my personal time running this site and it is purely a hobby site. I usually don't make enough in donations on a yearly basis to cover the costs but assuming I survive my heart operation next month, in two years time I retire. If the site cannot finance its running costs at that time it gets shuttered for good. So maybe you should take a step back and just appreciate what we have here which is 13,000+ mags preserved and maybe reign that ego in. Pretty sure everyone else here will be annoyed if I close it down because someone's nose got bent out of shape and I decide "enough is enough".

[kitsunebi]

3.Due to having to rebuild the site from the ground up EVERY TIME and given I am a one man band I have not had the time to try and work out exactly who submitted what. Jason submitted hundreds of PC Powerplay issues for example and I haven't been able to determine which of us scanned a particular issue but not once have I heard him complain about the situation as he knows I am under the pump trying to keep the site running and add new content as soon as I can. Nipedley hasn't complained once about the situation either.

I just want to address this point in particular.  (This is completely separate from whatever drama slider1983 is partaking in at the moment.)  To be clear, I'm not addressing this to Kiwi, but rather to EVERYONE who might see this, as this applies not just to OldGameMags, but to the magazine scanning community as a whole:
 It is INSANE to me that the scanner is not part of the filename.  I come from the comics world, and the magazine community is A MESS by comparison.  Let me show you some real examples of comic book filenames:

Batman 005 (2012) (Bchry-DCP)
Batman 005 (2012) (2 covers) (Minutemen-Oracle)
Batman 005 (2012) (7 covers) (theProletariat-Novus)
Batman 005 (2012) (7 covers - 2048px) (theProletariat-Novus-HD)
Batman 005 (2012) (6 covers) (Megan-Empire)
Batman 005 (2012) (6 covers) (digital) (Minutemen-PhD)
Batman V2 005

These are all actual filenames for different scans/rips of the same issue.  I can tell at a glance who the scanner of each is.  For that matter, I can tell at a glance which ones ARE scans, as opposed to a digital rip (in which case, I can see who the ripper is).  One scanner released 2 versions, an SD and an HD version, and I can tell those apart at a glance as well.  I can also see which ones include alternate covers, and how many.

It's all very useful and practical...except for that last one.  "Batmam V2 005" tells me jack all nothing other than what issue it is.  I promise you, I would NEVER download that one unless it was the only one available, since I know nothing about it. 

And yet, that's exactly how the magazine community titles its scans.  Absolutely no identifying information other than the mag title and issue number.  If more than one scan of the same issue exists, there's no way to tell them apart but to download them both and compare.  And if you should ever want to know who scanned it, YOU CAN'T.  This is asinine.

I've been putting a personal credits page at the end of my scans, but honestly, that does nothing to solve the problem of differentiating between multiple files on a list or identifying whose scan you've got saved on your hard drive without having to open the file and check.  Filenames are where this info should be.

I've heard people say they don't want this kind of information cluttering up their filenames...to which I...I just can't....??  Seriously?  What is wrong with these people?  They must have the smallest collections of digital files!!  They also must not mind at all when they search for a mag on the Internet Archive and find 5 different copies...all with similar filenames and no way to tell them apart. (Are they all the same scan just uploaded by different people?  Different scans?  If so, which one is best?  WHO KNOWS?? GOTTA CHECK 'EM ALL!!!) Well, fine, for those (terrible) people, let 'em erase the helpful info, but for those of us who want to actually know what the hell we have in our collections, informative filenames are the best way to do it.

I don't download many mags anymore, but when I do, I promise you I add the scanner's name to the filename.  If the scanner/editor are different people, I hyphenate the two names (not a lot of these tag-team combos around here, but it's pretty common at Retromags.)  Sure it's nice to say "so and so scanned this" in a release post, but 3 years later when you're looking at that file on your hard drive, are you going to remember who scanned it if it isn't labeled??? 


Sorry for the rant.  Again, this isn't just OGM, it's ALL magazine scanners, and it's a huge pet peeve of mine.  What the #$%$ is wrong with you people?! LOL. 

[slider1983]

1. I can't remember your particular scans of the Gamesmaster issues in question other than that they had blurred spines which caused issues with a few pages where the text was printed very close to the inner edges. It may be that and the fact I had these particular issues meant I was happier waiting until I had an opportunity to scan my physical copies instead. Not sure given the length of time and the fact my 5650c died and I had to expend considerable effort learning how to get it working again.

Okay I need to provide some context here. Every time I send a scan I send an email to notify you what the scan was and any problems I had scanning it so good thing I did that. I'm not sure what blurry scans you're referring to? Do you mean all the GM bookazines I sent over? The standard GM scans don't have blur on them. Issue 124 was fine last time you mentioned it, that's why I'm puzzled by a new scan being done, which is desaturated in comparison to mine. Like I said, both are readable but odd you redid it as it was fine. If there was blur can you tell me where? Happy to be corrected.

Then there's 142 which I corrected Nipedly's scan. I felt I could do a better job. I didn't notice any blurring on this either, again could be wrong. The biggest problem with the scans is he was working at such a fast pace 142 even in its fixed form has pages that aren't straight. I fixed most of the worst pages with my own scans. I thought that was enough instead of needing a total new scan? Nipedly scanned A LOT but he did make some noticeable errors, one major one that was fixed in my corrections you haven't uploaded yet.

4. You have a propensity to complain and/or make inflammatory comments at times. Part of the reason for "radio silence" as you put it is because sometimes it's easier on my psyche to say nothing at all as I don't like fueling whatever it is that irks you at any given time. Public commenting like this is really uncomfortable for me but your comments in the new releases thread deserved a reply.

I have to defend myself here because that's incorrect. I never argue or complain unless I have reason to. You'll find Kitsunebi doing that more than me by default. I also never say anything inflammatory so not sure where that comes from? If you have been paying attention to my output which you don't really uploaded or acknowledge you SHOULD know by now I have no beef with you, I really appreciate this website and what you do. I genuinely want to help the website and get scans out there to people that I scan for myself. My continued frustration and complaining has been the lack of acknowledgement and communication over anything I contribute so I'm constantly kept in the dark or ignored. Why do that to a contributor I have no idea. Now by all means you might think a particular scan could be better but it would be nice if let me know not in advance even whether it's been approved or rejected but whether you actually got it? I am contributing scans but for whatever reason I get no response. You must understand it's very difficult for me to contribute to a website if my contributions aren't even acknowledged, let alone uploaded.

At the end of the day it's no skin off my back if my stuff doesn't get uploaded because I keep a good quality scan, it's everyone else that obviously suffers. But I take issue with saying I make 'inflammatory' comments or complain. My only complaint and continued frustration has been the lack of communication about what I contribute. Approved? Great. Rejected? Let me know and maybe I can fix what the problem with the issue is. It's especially weird with my recent scans why they're being held off when they're good quality but hey, I'll just keep doing what I'm doing, I'm getting some pretty good scans right now which aren't being looked at. I'll let Kitsunebi's quoted rant below describe the other problem I am highlighting. Partly my fault, partly the website owners for not keeping track of stuff. Also sorry for the rant.

And yet, that's exactly how the magazine community titles its scans.  Absolutely no identifying information other than the mag title and issue number.  If more than one scan of the same issue exists, there's no way to tell them apart but to download them both and compare.  And if you should ever want to know who scanned it, YOU CAN'T.  This is asinine.

You see one of my problems then.

[Kiwi]

Okay, a little bit of context here.

I do not have any of your scans currently on the NAS. Nor are they on the Mediafire drop box. Most likely the reasons are twofold. Firstly, I stored scans submitted by members on an older NAS or on a HP SSD drive. Both of these suffered catastrophic failures a while ago with two drives in my RAID dying so I was unable to rebuild the partition (lesson learnt ... never rely on RAID as a backup medium) and the SSD file system got screwed up. Secondly, as I only have one Mediafire account  I delete mags once I have downloaded them off the drop box to keep it clear for new uploads. Best guess is a LOT of your old files are part of what was lost. I also lost raw scans of over 100 Look and Learn issues and several other gaming mag scans, many of which I can't remember what they were.

That aside, you seem to have a bee in your bonnet over Nipedley not getting credited and he's submitted far and away more than you. You don't appear to have read .3 in my previous post about the sites where I did name him in his scans dying and so I was unable to ascertain who scanned a lot of what was submitted nor have you given me sort of slack for the fact that I had to rebuild a download portal of thousands of files back up from scratch.

kitsunebi has let rip about scanner names not being included on file names of magazine sites in general. I will take that onboard so instead of scanning new mags for and/or updating the site with new submissions from Gregorick or anyone else I will now try and determine who scanned what, starting with his files, and append the scanners name to the applicable files.

With 13,000+ files on the site I should think that will take me several months to work through.

Feel free to reupload your files to Mediafire with your name appended to them but as I am busy updating the existing files for your benefit, don't expect to see them online for several months.

[JohnS414]

Hi Kiwi.

I agree with the other posters that including more info in the filenames is a good idea. This is what happens with other media and is very useful.

Can I suggest that oldgamemags.com is also included in the filenames. This is something I personally do when renaming files and means it is clear that the files aren't to be shared elsewhere. Otherwise it's very easy to lose track of the source.

Instead of renaming 13,000 files wouldn't it just be easier just to do this for new files going forward?

Finally I haven't been a member for long but you have created an amazing site here and one I check daily. Thank you!

[IloveCats100]

I think just adopting new names going forward is fine, there's no reason to make a lot of work for yourself and i'm sure others would understand!

[kitsunebi]

I think just adopting new names going forward is fine, there's no reason to make a lot of work for yourself and i'm sure others would understand!

Absolutely.  Perhaps Kiwi took my argument the wrong way - I certainly wasn't advocating a full-on renaming of thousands of files already out in the wild.  I already explained this problem had nothing specifically to do with OGM, it's the mag-scanning community as a whole.  Every single mag anyone has ever released is guilty of it, including my own.

If we start naming things a little more thoroughly going forward, that would be great - I'd love to see OGM take the initiative on this long-overdue practice.  Though I doubt it will do much good to change the rest of the community's practices.  I've already been told once by the folks in charge of Retromags that they have no desire to have any such info in their filenames, as they're firmly in the camp of "anything other than the name and date is clutter that should be deleted." 

I remember bringing up rips of movies/TV as an example (this is paraphrased as I cant recall the exact filename I used as an example):
I asked, would you rather download a file called Jurassic Park 1993 (1080p Bluray x265 HEVC 10bit AAC 7 1 Tigole) (which tells you the ripper, the source, the resolution, the ripping codec, and the audio format) or a file just called Jurassic Park?  Would you believe they said they prefer the second one? The one where you have NO IDEA what exactly you're getting?  LOL!  I don't actually believe them for a second, but at any rate they made it clear that they would delete any identifying info other than the name and date since they "don't like clutter."

But who knows?  Magazines are literally the ONLY types of media still being released without identifying information, so maybe a change will happen eventually if we get the ball rolling?

But yeah, no need to take time out trying to update 20 years worth of filenames - that's probably not even possible at this point.  What's done is done.

[gobbins]

I can only echo kitsunebi and ILoveCats100 in saying there's no need to retroactively update 13,000+ files, especially when, per your own admission, many of the uploaders, scanners used, etc are unknown at this point.

If a more comprehensive naming format is to be adopted, I'd recommend it only apply to new files going forward. What you're suggesting would be a monumental task.

[slider1983]

I do not have any of your scans currently on the NAS. Nor are they on the Mediafire drop box. Most likely the reasons are twofold. Firstly, I stored scans submitted by members on an older NAS or on a HP SSD drive. Both of these suffered catastrophic failures a while ago with two drives in my RAID dying so I was unable to rebuild the partition (lesson learnt ... never rely on RAID as a backup medium) and the SSD file system got screwed up. Secondly, as I only have one Mediafire account  I delete mags once I have downloaded them off the drop box to keep it clear for new uploads. Best guess is a LOT of your old files are part of what was lost. I also lost raw scans of over 100 Look and Learn issues and several other gaming mag scans, many of which I can't remember what they were.

That's totally understandable. I'll go through my emails and resend stuff. I know you have three recent GM scans from me and two Radio Times to look at so that should be fine until I find out what needs to be added here that got lost. If there's a list of mags you wish to redo let me know and I can send the fixed versions I did while crediting Nipedly as well. Maybe those will be okay for upload. I apologise for taking you to task about this, the ranting is not good for either of our health's. It's just the frustration over a total lack of communication over what I've sent over the years. I never realistically expected you to respond to every email notification about what I send over but once every now and again would keep me in the loop a little with contributions. If a copy of a magazine exists in your inbox and it's good quality I see no reason to have to scan it again so it feels confusing and frustrating. Anyway, thank you again for allowing me to contribute. I just wish to help.

nor have you given me sort of slack for the fact that I had to rebuild a download portal of thousands of files back up from scratch.

I was annoyed about a few things and never took that into account so now I agree, it was a huge, huge undertaking.

Feel free to reupload your files to Mediafire with your name appended to them but as I am busy updating the existing files for your benefit, don't expect to see them online for several months.

Will do! I will also make sure to add my name or Nipedly to the file names where necessary or if I can since some scans weren't originally done by us.

I can only echo kitsunebi and ILoveCats100 in saying there's no need to retroactively update 13,000+ files, especially when, per your own admission, many of the uploaders, scanners used, etc are unknown at this point.

It's only because since being here a major point of magazine scans that was instilled in me was making sure people were credited and not taking credit for others work. But...yeah it's 13000+ files so maybe you guys are right there. 

[kitsunebi]

First off, regarding scans and credits of stuff already on this site: I'm unaware of any magazines currently available to download which were scanned by slider1983 other than the handful that can be found with his name credited as the scanner.  So far as I know, there are zero scans of his available here which are credited to someone else.

So there are three complaints here that I see:
1. A few scans which have yet to be uploaded.  To this I would say, if you're impatient, upload your stuff to the Internet Archive.  Several people here including myself do that with our scans as well.

2. Someone has rescanned mags scanned by someone else.  To this I say, SO WHAT?  If someone wants to scan their own mags, that's their prerogative.  I scan stuff I own that has already been scanned all the time if I think I can do a better job (which is most of the time.)  As to which version gets uploaded here, that's up to Kiwi.  If he chooses someone else's over your own, then again I direct you to the Internet Archive, where lack of any kind of oversight allows for an infinite number of the same thing to be uploaded without issue.

3. Slider1983 has submitted single page "corrections" to scans already available here.  I honestly don't know what to make of this other than what he himself said in this thread, which suggested that he sent in rescans of some pages that were crooked.  This seems pretty rude, to be honest, especially expecting Kiwi to release these "corrected" files while crediting two different people.  If some pages are crooked, my first suggestion would be...straighten them.  Scanning a few pages that could simply be straightened and then expecting to receive equal credit for someone else's scan is rude, as I said.  If the magazine is a mess and lots of pages are SO crooked that huge portions of the page were cropped off, so straightening isn't going to fix the problem, then I suggest rescanning the entire mag if you want to get credit for it.  Though again, be prepared to upload it to the Internet Archive since if there's a possibility your new scan isn't seen as clearly superior by others.



With that out of the way, I want to come back to the point I was making earlier about filenames, because I see that my argument has been appropriated by others for the wrong reasons.  Putting more info into the filenames is NOT about the scanner getting credit.  It is NOT an ego-stroking thing.  It's about making it clear what file you're looking at if you discover it in the wild at a random site, or else are looking at it on your own hard drive after you've forgotten exactly where you got it from.  Indeed, having the scanner's name included is important, but it isn't about giving that person credit.  It's so I can tell their scan apart from someone else's at a glance - and I'm just as likely to AVOID scans by certain people who turn out lackluster scans as I am to seek out scans by scanners I trust to deliver something high quality.

[Kiwi]

Can I suggest that oldgamemags.com is also included in the filenames. This is something I personally do when renaming files and means it is clear that the files aren't to be shared elsewhere. Otherwise it's very easy to lose track of the source.

I don't really see any point to that as some members like kitsunebi release their magazine scans on multiple websites. I only release my personal scans here so it only really applies to me. Additionally, if I shut the site down at some point and for arguments sake my files get uploaded to IA or Retromags the OGM part is no longer valid.

Of course that presumes that other sites wouldn't change the file names. As kitsunebi alluded to earlier there's probably 100% chance that they will so it's all a moot point anyway.

Approximately 240 files have been changed to include the scanners name in the filename. Only 13,100 files to go ....

[kitsunebi]

Approximately 240 files have been changed to include the scanners name in the filename. Only 13,100 files to go ....

I still think you're overreacting unnecessarily to this.  There's no real need to rename the stuff from before.  Most people here have already downloaded the things they wanted anyway, and for anything not exclusive to OGM, those files have already been uploaded elsewhere, also without identifying info in the filenames.  So adding the info now doesn't really solve the problem and will indeed just create another variant of files that have already been widely dispersed without that info.

If applied to new files going forward, it could theoretically make those files more easily recognizable and distinct in the future, so long as people don't change the filenames if uploading them elsewhere.  Of course, preventing that with 100% effectiveness is impossible, so all you can do is hope for the best.  But if a new naming convention becomes widespread, I envision a future where, just like with comics or video rips, when people are confronted with multiple versions of the same file at the Internet Archive or wherever, they'll choose the one from a trusted ripper/scanner over the mystery one without any identifying info, meaning that anyone erasing that info from the filename will ultimately be doing nothing but ensuring that their generically-named file will be the least-downloaded one.

The other benefit strictly applies to hosting sites like Retromags or OGM that credit the scanner/editor, since having that info in the filename would make it easier to restore credit should there ever be a massive hardware fail/data wipe as has happened in the past.

[Kiwi]

The other benefit strictly applies to hosting sites like Retromags or OGM that credit the scanner/editor, since having that info in the filename would make it easier to restore credit should there ever be a massive hardware fail/data wipe as has happened in the past.

That's exactly why I am looking at changing the file names. I've had the site go belly up on a couple of occasions where I had scanner details noted against issues and lost all that info in the big crash making it difficult to credit them when the site got rebuilt. Plus I guess I got a little overworked just getting the file database rebuilt and in the noise of getting new content subsequently added just didn't get around to trying to do it.

For files where I have the scanner noted on the current site it makes sense to me to go through the motions and get their names added to the file names so I have at least a chance of getting them their credit if something ever happens to the current site.

[slider1983]

First off, regarding scans and credits of stuff already on this site: I'm unaware of any magazines currently available to download which were scanned by slider1983 other than the handful that can be found with his name credited as the scanner.  So far as I know, there are zero scans of his available here which are credited to someone else.

Not sure what you mean by this. Any corrected scans I've done haven't been uploaded yet but were submitted a few years ago. New scans I still send in. Does that clarify things?

I scan stuff I own that has already been scanned all the time if I think I can do a better job (which is most of the time.)  As to which version gets uploaded here, that's up to Kiwi. of oversight allows for an infinite number of the same thing to be uploaded without issue.

Yes but he wasn't even aware of most of the scans or didn't acknowledge them. One of the few he did he rescanned because my corrected scan got lost and he didn't remember I did one. Re-read above what Kiwi said.

Slider1983 has submitted single page "corrections" to scans already available here.

Where did I say that? Please get your facts correct.

This seems pretty rude, to be honest, especially expecting Kiwi to release these "corrected" files while crediting two different people.  If some pages are crooked, my first suggestion would be...straighten them.  Scanning a few pages that could simply be straightened and then expecting to receive equal credit for someone else's scan is rude, as I said.

Nothing rude about it. I saw improvements to be made, I had the physical copies and I tweaked Nipedly's scans. I didn't want to redo the entire mag because it's still mostly his scan, I just perfected it since he was working at a fast pace and I could see possible improvements. Are you aware at least one of his scans on here has missing pages or pages belonging to the wrong issue? Fixed it! Do I want a credit? Sure why not...but it's important for Nipedly to be credited because he did most of the heavy lifting. It would be dishonest not to. Also, why can't two people be credited for something?

I appreciate your contributions but you always seem to make assumptions that are inaccurate while being on the offence, in this case you are assuming things about my scans that are untrue. It's best not to talk about stuff that you don't know the details of. It's stuff like this that makes it difficult for people to get along with you. You are pretty keen to big up your own work but you are also pretty good at looking down at other people's scanning efforts, undervaluing or rubbishing them. At least with me you act that way. I don't appreciate that and it's not helpful for a community. I appreciate your work so it's not fair of you to behave that way.

Indeed, having the scanner's name included is important, but it isn't about giving that person credit.  It's so I can tell their scan apart from someone else's at a glance - and I'm just as likely to AVOID scans by certain people who turn out lackluster scans as I am to seek out scans by scanners I trust to deliver something high quality.

We agree to disagree on that. People improve over time and my scans are pretty great today. You're free to be a snob about what you download but I'm grateful for any scans I can find in reasonable quality. 👍

I still think you're overreacting unnecessarily to this.  There's no real need to rename the stuff from before.  Most people here have already downloaded the things they wanted anyway, and for anything not exclusive to OGM, those files have already been uploaded elsewhere, also without identifying info in the filenames.  So adding the info now doesn't really solve the problem and will indeed just create another variant of files that have already been widely dispersed without that info.

I agree to a point however in your case you are free to upload anything in your name yourself. Others do not have that authority so you must understand why me stumbling on Bishop of Battle saying thank you to Kiwi for scans I did is a little frustrating as it would anyone else who scans. At the end of the day I raise this concern only because everyone has lodged in my head the importance of crediting and not stealing. If that isn't a problem now because it doesn't directly affect you due to having control over your own uploads then not sure what to say. Maybe Retro Mags is more lax about that? Not sure, you have more experience of that website than I do.