Actually, with the way these are being put up on the site, its easy to put the attribution at the bottom of the entry; the lore entries are in a side panel, so a note at the bottom that the associated lore is from source X isn't difficult at all.
|
While the OGL certainly does allow you to take OGC from the Bestiary and add OGC content from other sources, I think the lack of any delineation between the official entry and the additional content potentially does a disservice to all of the authors involved in each piece of it, and does make it difficult for people who are only interested in official sources to use your site.
Thanks Vic for checking the site out. I think you're certainly right that we should probably more clearly spell out the different sections of a page. We'll certainly do that in the future.
As for making it difficult for people who are only interested in official sources, I think those people are *very* well served by the PRD or the print books. Either way, we try to make clear that we do not restrict the site to "official" content only and in fact that's one of the major reasons I started the site. If I JUST wanted official content I would be perfectly well served by using the excellent PRD. However, I wanted more, hence our site. Regardless, a better distinction between different sections on a page is a great idea.
And it's even worse when you cite the source for just part of it, as in the allip page—any reasonable reading of that page would suggest to the reader that the lore came from the Bonus Bestiary, and it didn't. It potentially does Paizo a disservice by associating our material with material that did not go through our quality control; it disservices the author of the lore by attributing his work to us, and it disservices anyone who goes to the Bonus Bestiary looking for that material, because they won't find it.
I'd strongly suggest that when you have contributions from multiple sources on the same page, you provide clear separation and individual attributions for those elements.
Agreed. We'll do that.
@taig: Color coding was my first idea but yes, color blind people would have a bit of trouble with that. We'll do something that doesn't depend on colors.
Eventually, you guys will arrange each page like the Talmud... ;)
I use my forearm.
Chief Technical Officer
|
I'd be interested in what people think after taking a look at Devil, Lemure entry. Would entries laid out as such work for people in making aware of where various material has come from?
I'm assuming you would also tell them the main entry came from the Bestiary?
Oh quite.
My personal end-goal is to have every entry tagged to its original source; in the case of Bestiary entries, they'd contain the notice of its original source and link back to the Bestiary Section 15 notice. Additional content, such as the aforementioned Lore entries, would have a note at the bottom of them citing their original source and linking to that appropriate Section 15 notice.
An annoying aspect of the d20SRD.com was with the amount of material on there, there were times I only wanted something from, say, Unearthed Arcana. Using the d20SRD site, I'd have to cite its ENTIRE Section 15 notice; something I never like doing if I can access the original source. Basically, I hate getting information third hand. That was my original idea walking into helping d20pfsrd, being able to cite exactly what I want to use, and it looks like it'll be best overall for the integration of additional material.