Indexing changes and versions
Daniel van Eijmeren
dve at kabelfoon.nl
Fri Dec 19 03:21:04 CET 2003
STEFAN PERSSON to me, 18-12-2003:
>> No. The comment doesn't say that the changes are the very same.
>> The characters could have been removed in different ways.
> Different ways? Someone using a knife, someone else giving part
> of the tree to his dog, and a third one using a computer program
> to remove the sidebar with DA, AMJ, GY & HLP as mentioned in the
> changes field?
I was told that "In WDC 600, the version without sidebar was used
(as you can see on COA)."
All I can see is that *a version* without sidebar was used. And yes,
if you ask different people to do the same job, you can get unexpected
differences. Even if they've done basically the same task. Barks's
'Three Good Little Ducks' (W FGW 47-01) is an example of that. The
retouching in the 'Carl Barks Library' and the 'Carl Barks Library in
Color' is different. See panel 3.8.
HARRY FLUKS to me, 18-12-2003:
>>> [issue codes] I think there's no need to bother the COA user
>>> with codes like that.
>> I *am* a COA user, and I *want* to be bothered with it.
> I think that's because you are not only a COA user, but also an
> indexer. Or is there another reason that a COA user would want
> to know the internal codes that were meant for indexers only?
A lot of stories codes are internal codes, too. At Per Starbäck's
Inducks site, the issue codes have been mentioned as long as I
remember. See, for example:
I didn't find that confusing at all. Not even as a newby. (This
refers to Ari Seppi's email about this subject.) Instead, I found
the issue codes very handy. And it's easier to refer people to a
code than to a title, which can be spelled in different ways.
Titles usually are a lot longer than a code. And a lot of titles
are basically the same.
>>> Debates are not as important as their results.
> But I already told you the result:
> H> For practical reasons, we decided in Inducks to call the version
> H> with sidebar "original", and the other one "changed".
> If you want to know the exact "practical reasons" and our discussions,
> I can dig out the archives for you.
I hope you notice that I'm not talking about the Family Tree alone. I'm
also refering to the stories which were reconstructed, redrawn, remade,
revisited, etc., by the original artist or other artists.
>>>> "takes" "mixes" "overdubs"
>>> I don't know what these technical
>>> terms mean. But I also think I don't need to know.
>> "I don't understand your hours of typing and thinking,
>> but what do I care?"
> That's not what I intend to say.
> You're using a metaphor to explain something.
Metaphor is a very big word. I'm just borrowing some terms from
sound/video recording because there are no comic book equivalents
for them. Why do you reject my *whole* explanation because of such
tiny details? I find it very frustrating, almost comparable with
bureaucracy, if I may use a real metaphor.
> I don't understand the metaphor at all (and I'm not interested in
> the things described by that metaphor).
You don't need to be interested in sound/video. That's not important
at all. I was just talking about comics, using real comic book stories
But there we go again, discussing discussions again. It happens too
often which I publicly try to discuss Inducks matters. And that's
why I rarely raise such subjects. Even when mentioning mistakes or
omissions in Inducks, I have to beg and plea to get it through. That's
why I often phone you. I can stay relaxed with a cup of tea, relieving
my RSI complaints, instead of getting more and more RSI. And I only
have RSI complaints when I'm stressed. It's so frustrating when hours
of typing are being blocked, just because my terminology should be just
a slightly teeny-weeny litlle bit different. And sometimes I think it's
obvious that people are only giving such criticism, because they're not
really interested in the matter. And when I get a few general, hurried
sentences back, it's even *more* frustrating.
> Then there's no use in explaining the metaphor to me; better
> concentrate on the original subject.
I *am* concentrating on the subject. It seems to me that you just want
to have a perfect match of communication, without having to do effort to
get what I mean. Basically you just ask me to type it all over again,
while you just could have *asked* what I meant with those three terms.
take = period in which an artist is creating a story or story segment
mix = the story as a whole, built up from one or more "takes"
overdub = changes made by an artist after a "take" or "mix" is made
It's debatable if these terms exactly match with the way they are
used when recording audio/video. But again, that's not the point.
I'm using these terms, just to have names for what I'm trying to say.
And if you (or anyone else) think there are better terms, just let
me know. Then we can agree on that. Those terms are just tools,
>>> Inducks has some minor flaws for people who want *very* exact
>>> information about Barks or Rosa creations.
>> And since Rosa is making multiple versions of stories, these instances
>> are not just a few exceptions anymore.
> Well actually, they still are. Rosa is making a dozen stories a year
> (if we're lucky). In the total producktion of several hundreds of
> stories per year, these Rosa stories are still exceptions.
Isn't there a rule that says that using statistics is a very easy way
to turn the truth into any direction one wishes?
If there are - let's say - only twenty stories which are "exceptions",
I wouldn't call them exceptions anymore. Even less with artists like
Barks and Rosa. They belong to the most popular Disney comics creators,
so there's a bigger chance that people will see such "exceptions". This
should also be taken into account when making statistics of exceptional
>> What art does an editor need [...]
> Note that Inducks was not primarily meant for editors.
You're using the past tense. Through the years Inducks has become very
important for editors. They even contribute to it, by giving information,
etc. So, I don't think it makes sense to say that they haven't been very
important long ago.
> The fact that they can use it is a very good thing, but editors
> should not *rely* on Inducks data, but always double-check.
"Double-checking" can only be done if Inducks gives the information.
Otherwise it wouldn't be double-checking, but just checking. In other
words, if Inducks doesn't give the information, people will have to
find *two* other sources, which do provide the information, if they
want to be able to "double-check" the Inducks-information.
But COA is also visited by fans who want to know what exactly has been
published in Disney comics. (Do they need issue "A" because it contains
extra art, or is that story the very same version as in issue "B"?)
So, this subject certainly isn't limited to editors only.
>> And what about the new art that Jippes and Rosa made for those two
>> stories? It's very nice that they've created that new work, but it
>> muddies the water even further. And COA doesn't provide any clue.
> Yes, we should add more "clues" in Inducks in some specific cases.
I think it would be better if an index provides *answers*.
> (Like you and I have already been doing during our phone calls.)
Those are individual cases.
P.S. This email cost me about 100 minutes of typing...
More information about the DCML