The rule in this thread is “You must briefly name the other programs you have tried and why you think your chosen program is superior to them”. The comment does violate that rule.
Why do you think you think one should take the wishes of other people seriously?
In particular your comment doesn’t really provide any use for someone who seeks a book scanning software given that your comment provides no useful information for chosing between the available options.
Why do you think you think one should take the wishes of other people seriously?
I did, and apologized in the initial comment for not specifically following the format. I’m not quite sure what the need is to point it out, again, when I initially acknowledged as much. If the roles were reversed I might have said “hey, I know you posted this in good faith, but was really hoping you would specifically follow the thread format and if that wasn’t possible to not post?”
In particular your comment doesn’t really provide any use for someone who seeks a book scanning software given that your comment provides no useful information for chosing between the available options.
It would give people a good starting place if they were looking for book scanning software.
I remember doing a pretty exhaustive search in 2012 when I did a lot of book scanning, and was impressed with scantailor. I could have listed the features I liked in more detail, but I couldn’t have honestly or reliability reconstructed the search.
So it’s my experience for whatever it’s worth and I didn’t write it like it was anything else.
I’m not sure if book scanning software is better now, but used to really like scantalior for books I’d scan from the library and share.
Other than specific feature by feature comparisons, a lot of this list is subjective experience with software.
In the future I’ll take “must” on LessWrong as an absolute requirement. Normally Internet commenting isn’t RFC-level strict. Thanks for the clarification.
The rule in this thread is “You must briefly name the other programs you have tried and why you think your chosen program is superior to them”. The comment does violate that rule.
People take thread rules pretty seriously around these parts.
Why do you think you think one should take the wishes of other people seriously?
In particular your comment doesn’t really provide any use for someone who seeks a book scanning software given that your comment provides no useful information for chosing between the available options.
I did, and apologized in the initial comment for not specifically following the format. I’m not quite sure what the need is to point it out, again, when I initially acknowledged as much. If the roles were reversed I might have said “hey, I know you posted this in good faith, but was really hoping you would specifically follow the thread format and if that wasn’t possible to not post?”
It would give people a good starting place if they were looking for book scanning software.
I remember doing a pretty exhaustive search in 2012 when I did a lot of book scanning, and was impressed with scantailor. I could have listed the features I liked in more detail, but I couldn’t have honestly or reliability reconstructed the search.
So it’s my experience for whatever it’s worth and I didn’t write it like it was anything else.
Other than specific feature by feature comparisons, a lot of this list is subjective experience with software.
In the future I’ll take “must” on LessWrong as an absolute requirement. Normally Internet commenting isn’t RFC-level strict. Thanks for the clarification.