Relax bulk upload restrictions?

[spinality]

Is there any chance you could relax some of the bulk upload restrictions? I'm referring to the requirement for 50 titles, and the rejection of duplicates.

I realize you put those restrictions there for a reason, but here's a common scenario for me. One of my bandmates adds a single tune to "the book" which is maintained in alphabetical order and is used by most of the players in paper form. I seem to have four choices:

• Delete all the index entries and re-upload;
• Delete the later entries and re-upload just that portion, if there are more than 50;
• Manually change page numbers via "song titles"; or
• Create a new book.

It would be very helpful if I could instead either:

• Re-upload the whole index, with duplicates replacing the existing entries (rather than causing an upload error), or
• Upload some number less than 50, say 20 or 30, without that being considered an error.

In a similar vein, I have a LOT of PDFs containing fewer than 50 titles. It would be helpful if I could create and maintain their indices using the same text file mechanism I use for longer books, and then upload those using the same technique. This minimum-50 limitation has been a deterrent on my creating indexes for various PDFs.

I'm not sure if you feel that there is something special about the threshold of 50 titles; but in case that is just an arbitrary number, perhaps you would consider a slightly smaller number? Or maybe allow us to upload fewer titles when updating an existing book, as opposed to a new empty book? Or allowing such exceptions for long-time users of iGigBook?

If you feel these restrictions are essential, then so be it, but I would find it helpful if they could be relaxed a little.

[Phil Smith]

What would be easier is to add said song to the end of the PDF and add an entry to the index indicating what page number it is on. The title sorts to where it needs to be in the list of songs. Now I understand someone is giving you a PDF that has had a page inserted in it which throws off your index, it's far easier to extract that page with a PDF tool and add it to the end of the PDF.

[spinality]

What would be easier is to add said song to the end of the PDF and add an entry to the index indicating what page number it is on. The title sorts to where it needs to be in the list of songs. Now I understand someone is giving you a PDF that has had a page inserted in it which throws off your index, it's far easier to extract that page with a PDF tool and add it to the end of the PDF.

Thanks for the reply, and yes, I understand that adding songs to the end is a simple approach for PDF management.

But in our case it would not be "easier" for us. All our paper and electronic versions must be in the same physical order. With this particular band, I believe I am the only one, out of about 20 musicians including subs, who uses iGigBook. When someone says "go to page 123," we all need to go to the same place. That's why they rely on alphabetical page order, a very common and traditional approach as you know.

Moreover, titles are often unreliable paths to songs. Some people enter the title as "Black Orpheus," others as "Manha de Carnaval", others as "Day in the Life of a Fool," others as "A Day in the LIfe of a Fool." Yes, I could create index entries for all those variant titles, and yes, I could say "forget the page number, what's the name?" But the stream of changes and additions is constant, creating a maintenance headache. At any rate, the simple reality is that these bands often rely on the books being in alphabetical sequence.

As a side comment, this seems to be a case where you have a particular usage model in mind, and you expect everybody to use your tool in the same way -- your way. That's your prerogative, of course, and you do have a good tool with a logical usage method. But in my experience, users often wind up applying tools slightly differently from how I originally pictured them. I can say "You're not using it the way it's designed," and in some cases that's the right answer. But if a small adjustment *will* let people do things their way, I don't see why that's bad. And in some cases, the "official" usage method doesn't quite fit the real-world need. Are you saying that, for those situations, you'd rather we didn't use iGigBook, and use some other tool?

Well, thanks for the suggestion anyway. I presume this means that you regard the 50-title minimum as important for some reason, which again is your prerogative.

[Phil Smith]

Thanks for the reply, and yes, I understand that adding songs to the end is a simple approach for PDF management.

But in our case it would not be "easier" for us. All our paper and electronic versions must be in the same physical order. With this particular band, I believe I am the only one, out of about 20 musicians including subs, who uses iGigBook. When someone says "go to page 123," we all need to go to the same place. That's why they rely on alphabetical page order, a very common and traditional approach as you know.

What you're describing has more to do with things being on a particular page so that when someone says go to page X and everyone goes there, they are looking at the same page. If that's how your band leader is calling tunes, you don't need indexing your band leader is playing that role meaning telling you exactly where you need to go. FYI: I played many, many gigs and I have yet to have anyone refer to a specific page to go to nor have many of the musicians that I know.

Moreover, titles are often unreliable paths to songs. Some people enter the title as "Black Orpheus," others as "Manha de Carnaval", others as "Day in the Life of a Fool," others as "A Day in the LIfe of a Fool." Yes, I could create index entries for all those variant titles, and yes, I could say "forget the page number, what's the name?" But the stream of changes and additions is constant, creating a maintenance headache. At any rate, the simple reality is that these bands often rely on the books being in alphabetical sequence.

Tell that to the many musicians that use this app to great effect.

As a side comment, this seems to be a case where you have a particular usage model in mind, and you expect everybody to use your tool in the same way -- your way. That's your prerogative, of course, and you do have a good tool with a logical usage method. But in my experience, users often wind up applying tools slightly differently from how I originally pictured them. I can say "You're not using it the way it's designed," and in some cases that's the right answer. But if a small adjustment *will* let people do things their way, I don't see why that's bad. And in some cases, the "official" usage method doesn't quite fit the real-world need. Are you saying that, for those situations, you'd rather we didn't use iGigBook, and use some other tool?

iGigBook isn't going to be all things to all people, just like any other app which you are well aware of as you have used others.

Well, thanks for the suggestion anyway. I presume this means that you regard the 50-title minimum as important for some reason, which again is your prerogative.

We know it's our perogative...we're done here.