Talk:Gutenberg

Actually the moveable type printing press was in use centuries earlier in Korea and then China, but as they're not western they don't get so much press. &mdash; Hippietrail 22:39, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Then put what he *DID* do. Don't say 'miscredited', but explain what he actually did.  He came up with "modern Western" movable type. 71.59.215.197 00:50, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Well the problem is that what he is famous for really is the invention of the movable type printing press - it's just not true though widely believed. His design was certainly independent and even better than what was in use in Korea and China, but going into that is beyond the scope of a dictionary.
 * I've had a shot at rewording the def so as not to continue the ignorance of Asian history/technology while still trying to make his contribution sound as important as it was. I'm sure it can still be improved. The old wording also gave another ignorant impression that moveable type is modern. As a trained printing machinist I can state that it was archaic technology 20 years ago when I was an apprentice. Most modern printing uses offset or even laser printing and the type itself had been produced photographically for decades before even that was obsoleted by laser printing et al. &mdash; Hippietrail 18:16, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm, apparently this is the 244th most common word in English, between "best" and "does"? Obviously that indicates a methodological flaw in the project in question... hmmm. Language Lover 22:02, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes Project Gutenberg files have headers and I think footers with almost but not quite standard and changing formats. Because they are not constant they are difficult to filter out. I believe Connel didn't even try to filter them out. This means that all the words in these headers and footers, especially the lesser changing ones are vastly over represented in those annoying ranking banners. &mdash; Hippietrail 22:24, 7 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I removed the "annoying ranking banner" from the top of the page, as it is misleading to the casual reader. --Keene 16:59, 31 May 2007 (UTC)