Go to previous post:
Thoughtful, global, and overloading his server:

Go to Electrolite's front page.

Go to next post:
Mark Kleiman:

Our Admirable Sponsors

March 25, 2003

And speaking of bandwidth, the Internet Speculative Fiction Database, homeless for several months, is now back up, hosted at Texas A&M University. A heartfelt bibliographic cheer. [11:34 AM]
Welcome to Electrolite's comments section.
Hard-Hitting Moderator: Teresa Nielsen Hayden.

Comments on And speaking of bandwidth,:

dd-b ::: (view all by) ::: March 25, 2003, 12:15 PM:

And isn't the ISFDB a welcome relief from the upstart at www.iblist.com? Quite apart from the depth of content, which ISFDB has a big head-start on, they *also* have a vaguely sane concept of what information is worth accumulating. So far as I can tell the Internet Book List hasn't even decided if they're tracking editions or works.

Jon ::: (view all by) ::: March 25, 2003, 03:11 PM:

Woo! Excellent!

Glen ::: (view all by) ::: March 25, 2003, 03:33 PM:

The correct entry cgi is not available yet, but it is good news that the iSFdb has found a new home.

It still won't change my opinion about Texas A&M though. :-p

Linne9a Anglemark ::: (view all by) ::: March 25, 2003, 04:11 PM:

What bothers me mostly about iblist is that they are so focused on rating books. I liked Alexlit (which might still be out there, I haven't visited it for years) and its ratings system that let you rate books you'd read and get recommendations based on the ratings of other people; however, I think it's a bad idea to have a database that purports to be a ratings db and a bibliographic db all at once.

And as a librarian, I am decidedly not impressed by the "Submit" form. But it's very early days yet and they will hopefully improve upon it.

Anne ::: (view all by) ::: March 25, 2003, 04:21 PM:

I still haven't forgiven A&M for not buying Ackerman's goodies when they had the chance. (And Glen--I have degrees from A&M and UT both. Trust me, A&M is no worse than any other large Research I campus. Besides, Aggiecon is fun.)

Kevin J. Maroney ::: (view all by) ::: March 25, 2003, 05:44 PM:

I have heard, from semi-reliable sources, that the conditions that Ackerman put on the sale of his collection as a whole made it impossible for anyone to buy it as a whole collection.

Specifically, he wanted it set up as a museum, which might have been possible, but one which could, for instance, have every issue of every pulp in the collection on face-front display at all times. Which is, if true, insane.

Stephanie ::: (view all by) ::: March 25, 2003, 05:59 PM:

Kevin - if true, that explains A&M's difficulty. The Cushing Library has a huge SF collection, but it isn't even browsable. You find what you want in the catalog and take your list to the desk. They fish it out of storage for you, and you get to sit with it - in their reading room, nowhere else - for a few hours. They have a severe lack of space as well as a number of items in the collection that are too valuable to be allowed out the door.

Jonathan Vos Post ::: (view all by) ::: March 25, 2003, 08:02 PM:

American economics is valid in this respect: competition is healthy. ISFDB is my competitor, in the marketplace of free data on Science Fiction authors, books, and stories. Yet I grieved its passing, and celebrate its rebirth. My own domain, magicdragon.com, now in its 8th year on-line, got over 10,000,000 hits in 2002. I provide data on over 9,300 SF authors (plus over 3,300 Mystery authors plus about 500 Westerns authors, plus a thousand fictional characters), and vast realms of film, TV, chronological, and thematic analysis. But my audience suffered without ISFDB, whose founder I and have stayed in supportive contact. There is, properly, no jealousy when you create a labor of love, and someone else does too, based on a similar love. Let a thousand flowers bloom!

Paul Riddell ::: (view all by) ::: March 26, 2003, 09:33 AM:

So do you think it's time I contacted them and had them update my Author listing? Or delete it, which is the preferable option?

Teresa Nielsen Hayden ::: (view all by) ::: March 27, 2003, 12:35 AM:

Delete it? They're bibliographers. They'll only delete it if you can demonstrate that it never happened. Updating's your better option. Drown the offending material in a sea of citations.

Paul Riddell ::: (view all by) ::: March 27, 2003, 09:57 AM:

Teresa: true, but I join the masses in agreeing that it's better to pretend that I never wrote in the first place. Besides, considering my output, deleting all of it will be no great loss.