Ask PG: Why redirect all HackerNews submitted PDFs through Scribd?
I just tried to post a PDF infographic (http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=223497), but deleted the post twice because the url was redirected through scribd automatically. In one case, using a URL "http://foo.pdf" caused an error in the automatic redirect. The domain for the submitted link is always labeled "scribd.com" even if it's coming from the authors, Xplane.com.
Shouldn't a Scribd interface for PDFs be optional instead of injected into any PDF link? You could use an intermediate page that has a link to original PDF (as submitted) as well as a link to the Scribd interface.
22 comments
[ 0.30 ms ] story [ 36.4 ms ] threadBeing deleted only makes me want know what the comment was. It's like censoring books: it only makes them more popular.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scribd
This page has an acceptable view where there is a link to download: http://www.scribd.com/doc/3292935/THE-LITTLE-MERMAID
But the automatic scribd links don't show it in this view.
I'm not sure why there's been such a backlash against Scribd lately. It's just something you read, you know? Neither PDF nor Scribd is enjoyable to use...so why complain about Scribd? It makes it more convenient and fast for some of us, and doesn't really impact others very much. Just because you happen to find Acrobat Reader slightly less annoying than Scribd (because I know you can't find reading PDFs enjoyable) doesn't mean you should be able to make the experience here at HN less consistent. I know that PDF links at HN will always be reasonably fast and available on my machines without having a new window open. If you could choose to provide a PDF directly, I would no longer click on PDFs, because I would never know whether I was getting the slow and irritating popup window, or the much less slow and mostly non-irritating Scribd interface.
Scribd does a good thing given that they have to operate online through flash, but having pdfs actually be convenient at an OS level trumps that.
I know it's no help for those stuck using Adobe, but it is, from my experience, some part of an explanation.
Why, oh why, don't they convert everything into PDFs or (better) HTML?!
Scribd is solving a real problem which exists but their approach is the most perverted way imaginable... View your docs... through a FLASH PLUGIN! Even converting them into high-res JPEGs would have been alot better.
So, I agree that converting to HTML would be better...it's technically a much larger challenge (click on the View as HTML link at Google for a Word or PDF document...and you'll see how well--or, not so well, in this case--a huge mega-corp with tons of cash, tons of smart engineers, and the obvious desire to do something useful in that direction, solves the problem).
I may not like Flash, but at least it works in the browser.
scribd is quite impressive for what it does, but Flash is a cruddy interface for dealing with multi-page documents. Add in the lack of recognition for the scroll-wheel, and poor font-rendering compared to native, and scribd becomes an active annoyance.
Adobe don't have a monopoly on PDF readers, why do you even have it installed??
On OSX, PDFs open up in the browser just like HTML, and load only more slowly due to typically larger file sizes. I don't believe that noone has written a decent PDF viewer for Windows.
And there certainly are enough opinions on this subject: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=222520, http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=222866 and http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=217682.
Incidentally, we never wanted iPaper to be implemented how it was on Hacker News. Our recommended implementation is always to give users a choice between iPaper and the original format. We asked PG to change it several times, but he was too busy creating the next 12 Googles, not that I blame him.
JDF President, Scribd