[rez]

If a novice came to the site and wanted to download Triple Threat Comics where would he need to look in the publisher groupings, under Holyoke or Special Action Comics?

[bchat]

Triple Threat Comics is in the Croydon Publishing Co section.

[Yoc]

He'd use the SEARCH feature to double check it being anywhere on the site.

[rez]

Triple Threat Comics is in the Croydon Publishing Co section.

Why Croydon Publishing?

[rez]

Just trying to get a handle on the processes used to define the publisher groupings.
Reason for the questioning is at times I find difficulty in locating an already established publisher listing for a comic.
An example is the Croydon Publishing being the resting place of TripleThreat Comics when the indicia has no mention of Croydon. Was the indicia named publisher 'Special Action Comics, Inc' just a one time usage? For us more novice types who do not carry a ready working knowledge of various publisher complexities it can become fairly problematic.

Might we be well to have a more thorough crossover listing of publishers made available to help simply things for those who are less knowledgeable?

Thanks

[John C]

I have no opinion one way or the other, structurally, but I would expect anybody who "strikes out" on their first attempt to find a book would use the search.  For a small or obscure title, I probably wouldn't even bother playing "Guess the Publisher," personally.

[Yoc]

Hi Rez,
I very strongly suggest using the SEARCH feature before uploading anything here.
Then you might want to bookmark this site and do a search for the publisher name from the indicia there-

http://www.bipcomics.com/showcase/logos/index.cfm

-Yoc

[JVJ]

One of the major problems with "Search" is that most users don't realize that less is more. If you try to use the GACUK Search function to find "TripleThreat" or "Triple-Threat", you're going to get a null return. It's always better to search for one word ("Triple" or "Threat") to make certain that you're not overlooking some variant spelling or punctuation.

The major flaw I've encountered with the GACUK Search is that PUBLISHERS don't get returned. IF you search for "Croydon" you get ONE hit (on FUNLAND 001) for reasons inexplicable (to me, anyway). Or, if they do show up, you get a subset of what's actually here. A search for "Hillman" (for example) turns up less than two dozen comics, while the site really has close to 200 Hillman issues.

I have always found this to be both misleading and frustrating.

my 2

[Yoc]

Hmm, I thought the search feature only checked for file names and description data.
I don't believe it searches the actual file folder names.  So if 'Hillman' isn't in the file name or description it wont turn up on the search.

-Yoc

[JVJ]

Hmm, I thought the search feature only checked for file names and description data.
I don't believe it searches the actual file folder names.  So if 'Hillman' isn't in the file name or description it wont turn up on the search.

-Yoc

You're probably quite right, Yoc,
about the way it works. But I will venture to guess that not ONE newcomer to the site looking for a particular company's output would know (or UNDERSTAND) this. It's impossible to "explain" how the search function works to everyone who visits the site. Since this is how Search works, why on earth aren't we putting the publisher's name in the "description data"? This seems like such an obvious solution (although, at this point it probably involves a lot of work).

Has anyone other than me ever felt this was a problem? If you haven't experienced what I'm talking about, go the Search and look for "Continental". Zero hits. You have know to go down the list of companies, scrolling all the way past Ziff-Davis and then know to look in something called "Small Press and Unsorted files" to find it. Not what I consider "user friendly."

Peace, Jim (|:{>

[narfstar]

I would say that any company on the front page should be enough for anyone to be able to find it. I do see the problem with the small press stuff. Maybe we could put a not on the front page instructing to look in small press if you can not find a particular company. Still have the problem of companies being know by different names. GCD uses Dynamic for what I have always known simply as Chesler and GAC uses Harry Chesler. I had never heard of Croyden before always as Rural, etc. I was hoping to get around to asking you and Frank Motler to check over the small press section to see what we can rename and regroup. I know there is better we can do.

[Yoc]

All of it gives me a headache too guys, trust me!
A lot of the publishers were already in place by the time I was made a mod.
I'm now in a position where folder name could be changed, etc but what to put where and under what name?

Jim, if something is filed under an incorrect folder PLEASE let me know.

Anyone on a PC using MS Explorer or Firefox can do the following.
Open the main download page and type at the same time: CTRL-F
This pops open a window at the bottom of the page for FF, in the middle for IE.
Type in the name of the comic you want to search for.  If that term appears Anywhere on the site it will be highlighted yellow.
So now Jim, if a search for Hillman is done this way you will have it highlight their section on the screen.
Give it a try.

As for adding a publishers name to every file on the site - only Serj can figure that out.  Sorry.
-Yoc

[JVJ]

All of it gives me a headache too guys, trust me!
A lot of the publishers were already in place by the time I was made a mod.
I'm now in a position where folder name could be changed, etc but what to put where and under what name?

Jim, if something is filed under an incorrect folder PLEASE let me know.

Anyone on a PC using MS Explorer or Firefox can do the following.
Open the main download page and type at the same time: CTRL-F
This pops open a window at the bottom of the page for FF, in the middle for IE.
Type in the name of the comic you want to search for.  If that term appears Anywhere on the site it will be highlighted yellow.
So now Jim, if a search for Hillman is done this way you will have it highlight their section on the screen.
Give it a try.

As for adding a publishers name to every file on the site - only Serj can figure that out.  Sorry.
-Yoc

Yes, I've certainly learned ways around it, Yoc, and don't miss anything anymore. I'm sure most of us have figured out how the Search works and can compensate for it's limitations. My point was more in regards to newcomers (of whom I was one until fairly recently) who are probably more used to the Search results they get from Google and others. As such, the GACUK engines is somewhat lacking.

I often wonder just how many potential members, posters, and ideas we're losing because of a first encounter with a Search function that doesn't return what they expect. It's an unanswerable question, but one that crosses my mind every time I go to look for something.

my 2

[John C]

To answer your original question, Jim, the Croydon search turns up that one issue because the company name is in the title.  Why the software searches the filename, I'll never understand, but that's how I learned to turn up all (well, most, after the crash) the files by searching for a period.

As to search issues, whenever I'm curious about retention, I usually turn to Jacob Nielsen, who studies that sort of thing (I look forward to his annual "Top Design Mistakes" article).  In this case, the article is pretty old, but I don't expect these sorts of things to change much:

http://www.useit.com/alertbox/9707b.html

Figure about half the people will try to use the search as their main navigational tool, and their frustration will track with how different it works from Google.

How many of these people leave because the search frustrates them?  I'd guess surprisingly few, actually.

First, the search IS actually pretty close.  No, it doesn't do companies.  Yes, it matches "substrings."  But box for terms, button to click, list of results--nothing weird, there.  It's not like you need to learn AND, OR, and NOT modifiers to make the thing go.

Also, my experience has been that people leave a site out of frustration when they realize that Google can provide them with an alternative...but this site is fairly unique, so that may not be likely.

I would still say that a better searching mechanism would be...well, better.  But I would guess that the technology isn't scaring too many people off.

[JVJ]

How many of these people leave because the search frustrates them?  I'd guess surprisingly few, actually.

First, the search IS actually pretty close.  No, it doesn't do companies.  Yes, it matches "substrings."  But box for terms, button to click, list of results--nothing weird, there.  It's not like you need to learn AND, OR, and NOT modifiers to make the thing go.

You're assuming, I believe, John,
that the searcher will persist knowing that the information they seek IS here. I'm not certain that we should assume that. If I'm a newbie and am looking for Continental comics, I might start scrolling down past the C's and when it didn't show up, go back and try the Search. When THAT returns nothing, I MIGHT try an individual title, which would provide both results AND a crumb trail to where the books were stored on site, OR I might simply give up and leave. I don't think we have enough data to ascertain which is the most likely (and most common) response.

I'm not trying to say that there's anything "weird" about our search or that we should include .or. and .and. and other BOOLEAN modifiers. I'm just saying that we should be aware of human nature and the limitations that are built in to the Search function as it exists.

Also, my experience has been that people leave a site out of frustration when they realize that Google can provide them with an alternative...but this site is fairly unique, so that may not be likely.

I would still say that a better searching mechanism would be...well, better.  But I would guess that the technology isn't scaring too many people off.

You might be right in your "guess" but I wasn't talking about the technology as much as the occasionally dismaying results generated by the limitations of the Search function. If it appears that what they are looking for ISN'T HERE, there isn't much to keep them on site. And that's often what it looks like to the uninitiated newbies using Search for the first time. I initially came to GACUK from a Google search so that I knew the book I wanted was here. But, of course, I first had to register and go through those hoops before being able to download it. By the time I returned to the download site, I had to find the book again. IF I hadn't known for certain that it was here, I would have given up LONG before I found it again.

Many of those problems are probably more commonplace than we know. After all, we only ever hear from a small subset of the folks who do persevere and succeed.

my 2

[Yoc]

I've seen some site, blogs perhaps, that somehow have a 'search the site with Google' option but being useless with programming and completely in the dark on how it could even be added I'm stuck at knowing it's been done.

The main download site is proprietary software which is no longer being updated or upgraded.  The code was released into public domain but Serj can't find a copy and the developer no longer answers his email.  So we are stuck with what we have unless Serj someday can find the program online and tweak it himself.  As Serj mentioned elsewhere...

So if you are bored or know any other sites using RW Download Script let me know the email addy so I can try and find an open source version of this site so can develop it further.

[JVJ]

As to search issues, whenever I'm curious about retention, I usually turn to Jacob Nielsen, who studies that sort of thing (I look forward to his annual "Top Design Mistakes" article).  In this case, the article is pretty old, but I don't expect these sorts of things to change much:

http://www.useit.com/alertbox/9707b.html

Figure about half the people will try to use the search as their main navigational tool, and their frustration will track with how different it works from Google.

How many of these people leave because the search frustrates them?  I'd guess surprisingly few, actually.

As a ps to my previous response, I think we may be talking about two different things. It's not the mechanics or the ease of Search that I'm referring to, but the EXPECTATIONS of what the search results will include. I have no problems with the interface of the Search function, but am mystified by the self-limiting results. My comments have been in regard to how the new user is likely to interpret what he or she is being shown by the search tool "findings".

And, of course, to open the topic for discussion of how we can overcome this shortcoming.

Peace, Jim (|:{>

[Yoc]

Hi Jim,
I'm thinking a typical newbie has fond memories of some old comic he read 20 years ago and does a search for the title.  Odds are it's a Marvel, Dell, or DC book and he's not going to find anything.  If that's all he wanted he'll go away unhappy.  If he gives the site a closer look he'll discover a TON of other books he might vaguely recall and give them a try.
Just how to organize the collection to be more user friendly while still being technically correct about who published what and under what name is six flights of stairs beyond tricky.  Publishers used a variety of names to hide from taxes, avoid paying postal fees, hide from creditors, etc.  All the names have made life a pain for us here.  I personally don't keep my books organized like we do here but I doubt anyone would be happy if we suddenly changed things around to match my system.

-Yoc

[John C]

Random comments as I'm rushing through, so pardon the lack of context...

- You're right that we only see the people who survive, but I'm thinking more in terms of general web usage statistics.  I'm also assuming that there are very, very few people who are interested in seeing only one specific book.  Yes, we'd lose such people, but I imagine that others are here looking to read and'll try alternate searches.  If there's no "Batman," then what about...?

- Google searches are easy to set up, but require someone to put the box on the page, and...I don't know, I've never been happy with the results.  In this case, it'll be worse than what we already have, because it'll ignore the file names.

- I should retract my use of the word "technology," earlier, as I meant it semi-ironically.  Technical adeptness has no more to do with navigating a web page than driving a car.  It's all about conventions, expectations, and psychology.

Sadly, I can see the "right" architecture to make the searches turn things up correctly, but it ain't pretty.  Among the things you want to take into account are the title (including variant spellings--U.S. Jones?  US Jones?  U S Jones?), the publisher (Rewl?  Rural?  Croydon?), and likely OTHER publishers (Holyoke or the original rights owners?).  And then, once you've gotten that down, why not also index by contents, including characters and creators?

I wonder if that's what Zog was thinking about when he suggested setting up a wiki.  Because if every book had a (crosslinked) page, each page could link to the direct download page, making it a far more effective search-and-browse mechanism.

[Yoc]

It's official, my brain has exploded.  Who's gonna clean up this puddle?

I wonder if that's what Zog was thinking about when he suggested setting up a wiki.  Because if every book had a (crosslinked) page, each page could link to the direct download page, making it a far more effective search-and-browse mechanism.

[JVJ]

- Google searches are easy to set up, but require someone to put the box on the page, and...I don't know, I've never been happy with the results.  In this case, it'll be worse than what we already have, because it'll ignore the file names.

- I should retract my use of the word "technology," earlier, as I meant it semi-ironically.  Technical adeptness has no more to do with navigating a web page than driving a car.  It's all about conventions, expectations, and psychology.

Sadly, I can see the "right" architecture to make the searches turn things up correctly, but it ain't pretty.  Among the things you want to take into account are the title (including variant spellings--U.S. Jones?  US Jones?  U S Jones?), the publisher (Rewl?  Rural?  Croydon?), and likely OTHER publishers (Holyoke or the original rights owners?).  And then, once you've gotten that down, why not also index by contents, including characters and creators?

I wonder if that's what Zog was thinking about when he suggested setting up a wiki.  Because if every book had a (crosslinked) page, each page could link to the direct download page, making it a far more effective search-and-browse mechanism.

My thoughts are SO much more Lo-Tech, John!
I don't care so much for wiki's and architecture and wouldn't understand them if you explained them to me. My suggested "solution" was going to be something as simple as adding the name of the publisher to the description line. This way you'd have two chances to "hit" the book you were looking for.

AND, since I'm doing the "pie in the sky" bit, I'd personally REALLY like to have the publication date (if known) there also. Since the current "Search" function looks in the description field (if I'm understanding things correctly), then date and publisher seem to be simple and valuable additions - even if only in new postings. We don't need to recreate or reinvent or replace the current Search. We just ought to take advantage of its abilities. IMHO.

Peace, Jim (|:{>

[Yoc]

Adding publisher and publication date for 7889 scans is NOT going to happen guys, sorry.
Now you are looking at a paying job and this is just a hobby.  A date can be found on GCD most of the time.

-Yoc

[JVJ]

Adding publisher and publication date for 7889 scans is NOT going to happen guys, sorry.
Now you are looking at a paying job and this is just a hobby.  A date can be found on GCD most of the time.

-Yoc

Of course not, Yoc,
but that doesn't mean we couldn't START doing it on new scans.  Eventually we're going to have lots of new books available and adding the info AS WE POST THEM can only add to their accessibility. Why not?

Peace, Jim (|:{>

[fett]

All of my scans I label as Title-#-Publisher-indicia date,# pages. Seems like that would work great with the search function, but all of my books are always renamed.

[Yoc]

Well Jim, in a perfect word each scan uploaded from now on will include those but as scans are coming in fast and furious from a variety of sources getting them all to include this info will likely be very hit and miss.

Now UPLOADERS, if you use the UPLOAD FILE link on the download site there is no reason you can't include as much info as you like in the description area - publisher, year, artist, writers, characters - Anything!  Using that link to upload books makes life about as easy as it can get for the mods and myself to get books quickly up on the site.  Obviously not everyone finds this method ideal for various reasons but if you can PLEASE use that method for uploading.  And please Please PLEASE try to follow the same naming scheme as the titles already on the site!

Files added via the FTP sometimes include publishing info (Darwin, Fett, Ont, Eric and Jon are very detailed) while others might only include a year or nothing but the title name.  So consistency is the problem.  To take on an extra step of finding and adding publishing info will increase the time to get a book up a lot.

GAC is great fun but damn active and it's a fight just keeping up. Please understand, things just as there I'm stretched as thin as I can go between GAC and other projects I've been trying to work on at the same time: the epic Phantom Lady v2+3, Liberty Belle, a couple more in the early stages, and my own private projects... I'm sorry Jim, I just can't do it.  If the info is in the file name I'll try and include it in the description but I'm not willing to hunt it down for each upload when it's not there.  When DM uploads 12 files to the FTP I can add them automatically fast enough but the big problem is the description info for each has to be added individually using an edit feature after the book has been added.  It bumps up the time demanded on myself and the mods considerably.  If Narf or OtherEric want to tackle adding publishing into to the uploads they are more than welcome to it but I'm only willing to go so far.  So if time is available I'll add it but if I'm really busy it wont be there.  That's the best I can do.

I hope you can understand the predicament.

-Yoc the very tired