So, I noticed that the book "A Certain Slant of Light" by "Laura Whitcomb" (released here: viewtopic.php?f=1295&t=545606 ), well it wasn't really well formatted and was converted using Calibre. So, I hunted down the source which was a DOC, and formatted it myself for reading, there were some minor things which I updated like TOC, sections and a little css. Now say if I want to update the previous release with mine, then should I post a new release or I don't know just not update it, or maybe update the original?

By the way the epub I made can be found: here

[Tidal]

It's an interesting question and I've only a partial answer.

Have faced similar situations, in which a current release offers an inferior version to one I have. In the case that comes most immediately to mind, the file being offered is worse than most scans, being a PDF copy of scan of a badly marked-up hardcover. Am guessing the hardcover was owned by someone who was liberal with pen, highlighter and turned-down-page-corners; and also prone to spills. Alternatively, that person bought the book secondhand and it has gone the rounds. At any rate, it would be difficult NOT to find a better version.

An obvious solution is to contact the original poster by PM and offer to pass along to him/her your improved version for use in his/her release. I have done that in all but the case I have just described, since I don't want to 'reward' such carelessness.

I think every releaser or fulfiller of requests should check the file they're sharing before sharing it, and then be upfront about the quality of the file s/he is offering. We can all make mistakes and miss errors in the books we share. Certainly I have. (The retail version can also contain errors). But we shouldn't miss spotting ones as obvious as I've described.

An obvious solution is to contact the original poster by PM and offer to pass along to him/her your improved version for use in his/her release. I have done that in all but the case I have just described, since I don't want to 'reward' such carelessness.

That's a similar situation right there because I do not want the original poster to actually get credit for the file, I actually spent some of my time in making that ePub, whereas all he had to do was click a button. That doesn't feel right to me, that some other person should get credit for a thing which he did not have any part in its creation.
If I hang onto this string of thoughts then quite possibly I think I should make a new release after all. But I think there should be a way to update previous releases while giving credit to the person who updated the release, because after all he might have spent some time in either finding this file, bought this file or like in my case updated little bits of the orginal source.

I think every releaser or fulfiller of requests should check the file they're sharing before sharing it, and then be upfront about the quality of the file s/he is offering. We can all make mistakes and miss errors in the books we share. Certainly I have. (The retail version can also contain errors). But we shouldn't miss spotting ones as obvious as I've described.]

About this, I think we could start implementing this in the newer releases and quite possibly use this thread here: /viewtopic.php?f=1147&t=428993, which is actually taken from alt.binaries.e-book(A.B.E) newsgroup on the Usenet and this same system has been applied to the IRC aswell.
If we implement this then even if the the previous release has not been updated, there could be a newer release with a higher/lower version, out of which the user has the right to choose which version he wants.
Now I just hope that the versioning system is implemented, but it might need the mods to version inumerable files by just downloading them, so, why not have them use the system in the newer releases and wherever possible by their original uploader.
But all in all this is just speculation on what we could do, and not what is being done. I just hope we have quicker answer to this tiny little dilemma.

Edit: I might as well, place this thought in the suggestions, in a while.

[arkonen]

You could always ask the OP to delete the topic. If he say's no then offer him/her the file and ask to be credited in the release post. Personally speaking, if anyone contact's me with a better copy of a file than what I have provided, I will always put a statement informing people of who actually provided the file. Just seems like good manners to do so!

You could always ask the OP to delete the topic. If he say's no then offer him/her the file and ask to be credited in the release post. Personally speaking, if anyone contact's me with a better copy of a file than what I have provided, I will always put a statement informing people of who actually provided the file. Just seems like good manners to do so!

@Arkonen I contacted OP already and have already replaced the previous files. And I forgot to post back on this thread, but I think this is what a lot of people should do anyway.

Just comment to tell inform others that here is the better version..

Just comment to tell inform others that here is the better version..

Just read Arkonen's post

Edit: My brains a bit muddled right now, so edited this post because my understanding of the statement was wrong

[arkonen]

Just comment to tell inform others that here is the better version..

I think this is against the rules. The only time you should be posting in a release thread is if the link is dead or to REQUEST an alternate format/version. If someone has requested a better version then in that case i think the rules state you can offer a mirror. You cannot however post in a request with mirror's if no one has actually requested them.

[jaysee]

All the info you need is here but in case you can't click it:

Reposting releases of ARC files and/or bad quality files
First, contact a moderator for the old release to be removed so your replacement post can be approved.
Posters of ARC files will be contacted by a moderator and offered a 24 hour deadline to replace their files with a final version of the book.
Posters of lesser quality files will have the right to replace their files within a week from notice before the post is removed to make way for a new release. 7 days with a weekend included should be enough for a poster to visit this site and edit the post.

Wow, I must have somehow missed that while reading the post. But good enough, I have contacted the OP anyway, as stated and he replaced the previous version. But well thanks for the info.

[jaysee]

Wow, I must have somehow missed that while reading the post. But good enough, I have contacted the OP anyway, as stated and he replaced the previous version. But well thanks for the info.

It's a relatively new rule brought in to make sure we have the best quality release we can.