Phil Smith wrote: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.