Keep up the good work!
I've since discontinued hosting it, but happy to add you all and merge into an official PG offering: https://www.reddit.com/r/SideProject/s/VtYKxjrMme
(I can’t quite tell if that’s an egregious abuse of the site or you’re perfectly fine to share without human eye balls hitting your www?)
https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/offline_catalogs.html
Perhaps you can find the information you are looking for there.
However if you plan on scraping or otherwise hitting them with a ton of traffic, consider at least to donate a good amount for the traffic you cause them. It ain't free after all.
Don't hit the site with agent. The section furtherst bottom machine readable.
> All Project Gutenberg metadata are available digitally in the XML/RDF format. This is updated daily (other than the legacy format mentioned below). Please use one of these files as input to a database or other tools you may be developing, instead of crawling or roboting the website.
And strongly consider a donation! (My addition)
https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/offline_catalogs.html#the-p...
autocat3 and gutenbergsite are repos responsible for generating gutenberg.org
Less than three is a classic!
s2 < <3
I suppose a printed book, black ink on paper, is "brutalist" and unpleasant to look at?
The text of a book shouldn't be encrusted with format, your reader or browser should contain the presentation that you want to see, find appealing, or need (accessibility).
On the site I noticed the library boxes have roughly a single extra line causing a scrollbar to appear and the last line to be chopped off https://i.imgur.com/PQ8T0qc.png is there an issues/bug portal to properly submit these kinds of things?
I was unable to load it initially (got an error from firefox) and had to re-attempt. Still slow if one forces a reload (shift-r, etc, to not use local cache).
I have about 50k of the books, I would have used a torrent of just the txt files if it was prominent.
The ISP actually knows which subscriber is on that line, can send them notices, block them, terminate them... loads of things that you simply cannot do because you have no relation to this person. And frankly I wouldn't want to need to have a personal relation with every website that I visit; my ISP can reach me if there is anything relevant to continued use of the internet. From personal experience, when I was a teenager, the ISP cutting our household off after an abuse report was an effective way of stopping what I was doing
If they can't keep their ranges clean to a reasonable degree, their customers will need to move if they want to access your part of the internet. New sign-ups will always be hard, so some amount of abuse is expected, but if it's the same abuse traffic for weeks after you've notified them, well, it stops being your problem at some point
To the ISPs? Each IP range has an abuse email address registered and this is specifically exempt from rate limiting at RIPE's WHOIS server. Not sure how it is in other RIRs but I just happen to know of this policy
You can automate the whole thing, provided that you have a reliable way of identifying the undesired traffic which you need anyway for being able to block it by any means. The trouble is in user identification (they'll just use a new IP address from that ISP or hosting provider if you don't tell the provider about the problematic user)
Others online have been writing about their own experience with the same stuff; it's not unique to PG at all, it's everywhere. Talk to anyone that runs a web server and they'll have these stories...
You also don't have to send out 1k support requests per hour. Could trial it with some hosting provider that you expect is responsive and see how it works out
edit: like, I just don't see another solution short of banning being anonymous online. Each site would have to know who you are. Someone has to be able to track it back to a person that is doing the abuse or there can't be any rules that we can apply. Imo it's better if that's the ISP (or VPN provider, say) who already has this information anyway
Show people a useful error, such as "You are using [ISP name] which sends large volumes of abusive traffic (think of spam and DDoS). They allow the attackers to hop around points across their entire network so we cannot block the abusers more selectively. Despite our attempts to contact them, the abuse continues in volumes which we do not see from other ISPs. To access our corner of the internet, use a different ISP. You could try mobile data instead of Wi-Fi or vice versa.", and they can make their own choices about staying with this ISP if more and more websites show this sort of error
If everyone tries to identify people piecemeal, we all need to implement ~200 different identification systems (assuming each country has a central system that everyone is signed up to in the first place), or rely on algorithms to tell who is a bot (I'm currently being misidentified on a daily basis and I'm, eh, not a bot. Trying to buy public transport tickets is currently difficult, for example, because the monopolist in my country blocks me after a few route queries when using a Google browser, and 0 queries from Firefox)
You could have seen it on some websites already
Bot traffic comes from machines that usually have a lot of idle cpu (since they're largely blocked on network IO as they scrape a bunch of sites in parallel), so they can trivially solve the anubis "proof of work" challenge, save the cookie, and then not solve it again for that site.
The only reason scrapers don't solve it is if the developers were too lazy to implement it... and modern scrapers also do, codeberg stopped using anubis because modern scrapers were updated to solve it.
The "proof of work" has to be easy or else people on old cell phones couldn't access your site (since an old android phone would start to overheat and throttle trying to solve a challenge that would take a modern server even several seconds), and it also consumes your cell-phone user's batteries, which is a really precious resource for them compared to the idle cpu on a server.
One of the things I give duckduckgo a lot of credit for is that while they're quick to interrupt me for a bot check (sometimes multiple times in a span of minutes) they'll let me identify ducks even on the most locked down browsers I use.
Every other system I've run into has constant false positives, e.g. Google captchas will sometimes say I've failed and make me do the hardest level (if it wasn't giving me that already), Cloudflare regularly thinks I'm a bot, Codeberg blocked me before, Github signup captchas used to take ~15 minutes to complete and then still said "well you failed, try again", Github's general rate limiting has false positives (some days I browse a lot, other days little, and on the little days it'll sometimes go "slow down" with no recourse whatsoever, you're just blocked for an indeterminate amount of time), OpenStreetMap blocks my browser at work because I'm using Firefox ESR instead of latest stable and it finds that user agent string to be implausible, whatever the german railway operator uses since a few days is triggering on me constantly, etc.,
etc.,
etc. Constant blocks everywhere.
With Anubis, my understanding is that you do the proof of work (with whatever implementation you like, it doesn't have to be the Javascript one that they provide) and you can move on without ever doing any task yourself. The power consumption is a shame, but so long as attackers aren't even doing this much, the couple Joules it takes doesn't seem to be an issue
Of course, the attackers will evolve, but for now...
Occasionally, you misclassify a real user as a bot, and then your reputation is ruined forever.
The official Polish train schedules website did this recently, feeding incorrect departure and arrival times to IP addresses known for aggressive scraping, without taking CGNAT into account. People... have noticed[1].
[1] (Polish) https://zaufanatrzeciastrona.pl/post/kto-i-dlaczego-losuje-w...
Furthermore:
* Make sure that all books are downloadable in bulk as torrents.
* Every day, generate a CSV file of all available books and their metadata. Distribute this so that bots and user clients can run queries locally, instead of using your search engine.
I have very mixed feelings about Standard Ebooks and would much prefer being able to use Project Gutenberg directly, but one good thing Standard Ebooks does is that every book has an associated git repository (on GitHub), so it's (in principle) possible to see a history of fixes to the text over time.
There are lots of reasons it could be preferable to centralize. OTOH their mission is limited and some competition is healthy, if only to explore alternative ways to do things.
PG focuses on an accurate digital translation of the source material, sometimes hosting multiple different versions of the same text, and doing things like putting work into recreating the adverts at the back of some novels.
SE focuses less of preservation and more on making readers’ versions of the texts, like other publishing imprints. So there’s typography standardisation, a light-touch moderinisation of hyphenation and soundalike spelling, and things like author-wide collections of short fiction and poetry even if it didn’t previously exist.
Both are valuable, but they serve different segments.
When I read an old novel, written two centuries ago in England, the little differences to modern English are part of the charm, and I certainly don't want any Americanism mixed in. For one of my favorite novels, The Forsyte saga, the author deliberately used some rare forms of words, which SE replaced with the mainstream forms.
The only thing they are is truly, truly wonderful.
The Bible is I daresay the most famous of these. Translations aside, even the English versions have had significant alterations done to wording, spelling, and meaning depending on the version.
There's also the Great Illustrated Classics imprint for certain classic novels like H.G. Wells's The Invisible Man. (I read that one like 10 times as a kid and it's what got me into sci-fi as a whole I'd argue. Haha.)
Whether these alternate versions are good or bad is obviously up for debate and depends on the person, but I'm just saying that what SE does is hardly new in the publishing world.
I personally worked on the Forsyte saga. If you think something was done in error, please let us know and we'll be happy to fix it.
Curious. Why even bother?
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16957359
The edit is still in place, and I still maintain that changing 'phone to phone in dialogue changes the meaning.
I also have many positive things to say about Standard Ebooks, but I don't think you were asking about those. :)
More broadly, the position of Standard Ebooks is that a modern reader would be distracted by spellings like "some one" and "every thing", and by time written like "2.30" instead of "2:30", and that books in British quotation style must be converted to American quotation style. I think most readers can in fact tolerate such small differences, and this position is frankly insulting — the punctuation and spelling of works are part of their character, and if anything, I'm more distracted by such anachronisms in style introduced as part of the Standard Ebooks process.
But nearly all print publishers also do what SE does. Why do you think they do, when it costs additional money and time to do that? A reasonable answer is that some, or a majority of, people prefer it.
Do they? To check, I tried to find a recent publication of Agatha Christie, and found the collection “Country Christie: Twelve Devonshire Mysteries” which says “First published by HarperCollins Publishers Ltd 2025”. It still has British-style punctuation (throughout the book), and times like “1.30”, “9.30”, “11.30”, “7.30 a.m.”, “12.30 p.m.”, and “8.30”. I checked a couple of other recent publications and admittedly they do modernize (though not in phrases like “every one of you”), but again I found the collection “The Last Seance: Haunting Tales from the Queen of Mystery” (2019) which does not. So it seems mixed.
In any case, I think it's fine to do what Standard Ebooks does, and if it were instead called something like “Modernized Ebooks with American punctuation”—if readers would know before picking one up—it would be totally unobjectionable. The name “Standard” gives the wrong impression. It's a bit like colorizing old black-and-white movies (or dubbing foreign-language movies instead of subtitling them): yes possibly even a majority of people may prefer it, but IMO it would be good to be more explicit what has been done.
Thanks for all the effort put into the site!
Author dates are a much smaller data set, can be generally supplemented from public marc records (viaf, loc, etc - I don't do that, but it's an option) and at least provide basic filtering / sorting.
(Note: A lot of print media these days has switched to far-to-small font-sizes. Less of a problem for (zoomable) digital media, but for many that's still a barrier.)
human-read: https://www.gutenberg.org/browse/categories/1
computer-generated: https://www.gutenberg.org/browse/categories/2
IIRC many of the human-generated ones come from LibriVox, many of the computer-generated ones came from a collaboration with Microsoft.
Also by the way I just searched for 3d printing and found nothing. Either there are no books, or the search query makes things too complicated, IMO.
I got it to a prototype level but then shelved it after having difficulty getting good results with various test datasets. Probably would make a fantastic ereader though
Use ⌘ + + until you get the line length you like.