Join 3,556 readers in helping fund MetaFilter (Hide)


Delicious Library Coming
October 26, 2004 10:22 AM   Subscribe

Best damn vaporware since the fabled OSX is going soft — yup: real live software, folks! I just can't wait to scan my entire book and music library into this beast. *drools*
posted by silusGROK (70 comments total)

 
And man! That's got to be one of the best software vendor sites I've seen.

Yes, it's small... and it probably won't scale too far up — but it's perfect for what they are right now.
posted by silusGROK at 10:27 AM on October 26, 2004


???
It didn't load on my browser; is that what's supposed to happen?
posted by Outlawyr at 10:32 AM on October 26, 2004


screesnshot of the app (it's a music/dvd/book 'personal librarian' that automatically grabs cover art, etc from amazon. it also scans in UPC symbols using an iSight or other webcam.)
posted by neustile at 10:37 AM on October 26, 2004


Looks cool, but does it only get images from Amazon? I have quite a few CD's that Amazon either doesn't sell or doesn't have cover art for. Also, if I wanted to set myself up as a library, does it allow me to "check out" individual discs from CD or DVD box sets?
posted by aaronetc at 10:41 AM on October 26, 2004


and once you have it scanned in, what do you do?
posted by machaus at 10:41 AM on October 26, 2004


LOOK AT ME MY WEBSITE DOESN'T RUN IN INTERNET EXPLORER I'M H4RDC0R3333333333
posted by Pretty_Generic at 10:43 AM on October 26, 2004


A Mac software site that doesn't work in Mac OS X IE? Ouch.

Still looks like interesting software, however.
posted by jca at 10:45 AM on October 26, 2004


Funny, I've seen lots of sites scrape Amazon info. I wonder what there policy is when an app scrapes.
posted by anathema at 10:45 AM on October 26, 2004


Yeah, I'm not sure how happy my employer would be having my browse my music across the corporate web connection.

Wasn't there something along these lines from Radio Shack a few years back? Something that looked like a panther?

And Pretty_Generic, I give them props for not kow-towing to shitty IE. Get a real browser.
posted by fenriq at 10:47 AM on October 26, 2004


So you scan the UPC on a bunch of stuff and then there's a picture of the cover of stuff on your computer.
???
And the website doesn't work on IE6.0?

Cool.
posted by Outlawyr at 10:49 AM on October 26, 2004


The fabled OSX is going soft? Huh?
posted by xmutex at 10:49 AM on October 26, 2004


Too bad -- the website it apparently doesn't work with Firefox 1.0PR. Or IE. Or [insert here].

So would somebody care to say what the hell this is and what's supposed to be so great about it? If all it does is catalog music and grab cover art, I'm gonna have a hard time getting very excited...
posted by lodurr at 10:50 AM on October 26, 2004


Great site, on windows it wont load in either Opera or ie.
posted by iain at 10:51 AM on October 26, 2004


I may be wrong but I don't think this is for sharing of bits. I think it is more for keeping track of sharing of actual physical media.
posted by anathema at 10:52 AM on October 26, 2004


Followup: Ah, I see: It requires Flash.

How clever -- to build a website which tells you that you can't use it if you don't have "the latest Flash plugin" -- it does potential users the great service of letting them know that the site author is not serious about usability, and that his work should thus be avoided to conserve valuable time and effort....
posted by lodurr at 10:52 AM on October 26, 2004


Meeting standards is not the same as kow-towing.
posted by Pretty_Generic at 10:56 AM on October 26, 2004


A Mac software site that doesn't work in Mac OS X IE? Ouch.

IE for Mac blows, and Microsoft doesn't even develop it anymore.

why should anyone bother with Mac IE?

it does potential users the great service of letting them know that the site author is not serious about usability

it's Mac software. that's a given. /snark
posted by mrgrimm at 10:58 AM on October 26, 2004


So it's kinda like guzzlefish?
posted by muckster at 11:00 AM on October 26, 2004


I think I am safe in saying that, since this is not accessible by most users of the web, it is probably not the Best of the Web.
posted by Outlawyr at 11:04 AM on October 26, 2004


A Mac software site that doesn't work in Mac OS X IE? Ouch.

Microsoft stopped developing IE for Mac in June 2003, so it's not a huge suprise.
posted by kirkaracha at 11:07 AM on October 26, 2004


I had no problems getting to the site in FireFox on XP. Perhaps the server has been beaten into a bloody pulp?

Modern browsers make IE look like the steaming pile it is. Tabbed browsing alone makes IE suck all the worse.
posted by fenriq at 11:09 AM on October 26, 2004


It doesn't work with my browser either. So yup, vaporware.
posted by rough ashlar at 11:13 AM on October 26, 2004


fenriq - you're thinking of the Cuecat

While I think the concept is neat, I don't understand all the hype.
posted by O9scar at 11:17 AM on October 26, 2004


"Instead of only showing your books, CDs, DVDs, and video games in a big, ugly, hard-to-read table, we show them on beautiful photorealistic wooden shelves that look just like the ones you'd see at the library or video store, with DVDs looking like real DVDs, and books looking like real books. "

I can't think of a more concise way to tell me that this software will be of no interest to me whatsoever.
posted by TimeFactor at 11:19 AM on October 26, 2004


The bluetooth scanner option is very interesting. The ability to scan barcodes/UPCs and save that information for later would be handy for wishlists and price comparison (I wish amazon would send out CueCat-like scanners for meatspace wishlist additions).
posted by shoepal at 11:22 AM on October 26, 2004


o9scar, thanks! Its a neat idea from a marketing wonk's perspective (no offense, I'm a marketing wonk) but the reality of using it was a serious pain.

And then there were the privacy issues too.

Pretty_Generic, actually MS has a long history of trying to "adjust" standards to suit them. That said, the site should make an effort to make their information available to all surfers, regardless of their chosen (or pre-installed) browser.
posted by fenriq at 11:41 AM on October 26, 2004


doesn't load up in the latest Opera 7.6. what a crazy site.
posted by lotsofno at 11:51 AM on October 26, 2004


The way the screenshot has out and late tags suggests you'd lend a DVD to a mate and then get a message it was late.

I wonder if it will automatically send prissy irritated e-mails for you.
posted by Flat Feet Pete at 11:59 AM on October 26, 2004


I just heard about this app the other day and am mildly excited about it. There aren't very any (afaik) good media cataloging/barcode scanning apps for the Mac. Readerware is a sucky Java app, and... well, there aren't any others. I'm looking forward to checking out DM--I have a boatload of books, cds, and DVDs, that I'd love to have in my computer without spending a 1000 hours on data-entry.

(The ability to repurpose my existing Quicktime compatible camera for scanning barcodes is pretty fly, if you ask me. Which you didn't. But if you did...)
posted by maniactown at 12:14 PM on October 26, 2004


Looks pretty, but why aren't any of these "personal lending library" programs able to create a webpage to display the library to potential "renters"?

Having a pretty-looking, searchable library on MY system isn't helpful to the person who wants to browse though my items on THEIR system.
posted by Robot Johnny at 12:19 PM on October 26, 2004


I dunno why, but this just irritates me. The error message oozes arrogance. "Site requirements"?! Oh, I see: We are expected to CONFORM to requirements to get a chance to see/buy this lovely OS X application, with its lovely chrome trim and its lovely (and pointless) photo-realistic wooden shelves. Even the screenshot irritates me. They're "investigating support" for unsupported browsers -- dude, it's just not that hard. In fact, it's really simple; in fact, this guy had to do MORE WORK to make it fail for other browsers! It would have been EASIER for him to make it work, than it was for him to code up an error page for the failure condition! (Unless, of course, he's doing some kind of pointless flash+javascript crap....)

Sorry, but seeing stuff like this...while I have to make my living writing reports against a crappily designed database using a poor implementation of a hideously expensive but deeply mediocre reporting tool...somehow it just puts me over the edge.

[.... desperately resisting urge to launch into rant on conformit of Mac users and poor usability in Mac OS ....]
posted by lodurr at 12:21 PM on October 26, 2004


Dunno what this... but for what it's worth I wouldn't want software on any of my PCs that was brought to us by someone who can't code good HTML.
posted by DrDoberman at 12:28 PM on October 26, 2004


Site doesn't seem to work on anything under linux (konq or moz) : ).
posted by phatboy at 12:31 PM on October 26, 2004


Runs neither IE nor Opera. Must not be interested in getting much traffic to the site given the fact that he is excluding the masses as well as the cool people.
posted by mygoditsbob at 12:40 PM on October 26, 2004


What does this software do exactly?
posted by eustacescrubb at 12:42 PM on October 26, 2004


Wow.

The site worked for me: Safari on Mac.

I guess I'm their audience.

My apologies to everyone who hasn't been able to view their site... it really is lovely.

Anyway, the app is a personal media cataloguer that has some wonderful outside-the-box functionality: drag and drop "check out" — just drag an item onto your Address Book entry and the item is checked out to that person... and you can even send reminders when the item needs to be returned; you can request suggestions based on your library for new purchases; and you can store your "card catalog" on your ipod (or, I imagine, other PDAs) so that you can have it handy at the store... it's a pretty cool app, at least in my book.
posted by silusGROK at 12:43 PM on October 26, 2004


I can see the site, and I'm using Firefox 1.0PR on OS X. I think that Delicious Library, like many other OS X apps, is aimed at a specialised and small audience. However, I can believe that there are plenty of people and small institutions with huge multimedia libraries who would like a relatively cheap and good-looking program like this one. It's not clear whether this thing will be able to share its information on the internet or across a network, which would vastly increase its usefulness, but even as it is, I think there are a few thousand people out there who this would really appeal to, and that's all it takes.

Incidentally, Books is a similar program, although not nearly as pretty (and only for books) which has a reasonably big following and can export libraries to all sorts of formats including HTML and Flash.
posted by adrianhon at 12:47 PM on October 26, 2004


Holy crap, is eveyone ok? There's a lot of venom being sloshed around.

Developing for IE these days costs extra money. As offensive as it may seem (and although itis disaponting that they don't offer other browsers CSS-free content), they can provide their site and offerings to whomever they please -- and since their software is for users of OS X, it isn't totally out of whack to focus on the browsers it's easiest to code for.

DrDoberman: I have to assume that either A) you're joking, B) you haven't looked at the code, or C) you're fairly ill-informed as to what good HTML is. The site's code is pretty damn good.
posted by o2b at 12:53 PM on October 26, 2004


Adrianhon, you beat me to the Books shoutout.

It'll take an incredible application to get me to shell out $40 when there are som many free and shareware applications that offer similar functionality. That said, I've been following the development of Delicious Library for months now, and am thinking it just might be that good.

But I'm not certain I can explain why it's so cool to people who don't see the point. If you're not the sort to obsessively catalog your collections, this will seem utterly useless. But for those of use who lovingly update and organize our iTunes libraries, this is the greatest!

I'm so excited I could plotz!!
posted by aladfar at 12:56 PM on October 26, 2004


If I borrowed something from a friend, and then got some snotty automated e-mail reminding me to return it, I'd probably just burn the item and not speak to the friend anymore.
posted by xmutex at 1:02 PM on October 26, 2004


xmutex: don't tell these people that.
posted by eustacescrubb at 1:10 PM on October 26, 2004


I can't see the value in this product for an individual. For a company with an internal library of books, cds, etc. it looks like an inexpensive way to manage all that stuff. I can think of a lot of companies that could use something like this, but individuals? How anal do you have to be to 'check out' your cds to your friends?!
posted by cell divide at 1:17 PM on October 26, 2004


Developing for IE these days costs extra money.

Bullshit. Developing for IE only costs money if you insist on doing a lot of complex things that don't need to be done.

I repeat: This guy had to do extra work to make his site unusable for most of the users in this thread. Now, he either understands that, or he doesn't. If he does understand that, he's an arrogant jerk; if he doesn't, he needs to learn how to code for cross-browser compatability.

And I repeat: It's not an IE problem. It is, as near as I can determine, yet another case of Flash-arrogance. I don't have the tools here to easily debug this (not my machine...), but I expect I'll learn that he's testing for flash and redirecting to the error page. Either that, or he's testing for OS. Either is equally stupid. Assuming that you only want to show the site to Mac users is just profoundly mistaken, for reasons I'll be happy to explain if anyone doesn't get it.
posted by lodurr at 1:21 PM on October 26, 2004


IE for Mac blows, and Microsoft doesn't even develop it anymore. why should anyone bother with Mac IE?

The majority of Mac users are still using IE, not Safari (I'm sorry to say). So I'd think a Mac software developer would be interested in reaching a wider audience of an already minority OS.
posted by jca at 1:23 PM on October 26, 2004


I'm so glad that Amazon released an API for their web services. Now I can get valuable information on what to buy when I'm looking at porn. Which this site had better have, if it's gonna make me jump through all these hoops.
posted by hoborg at 1:26 PM on October 26, 2004


Cell Divide: I don't know where I fall on the anal scale... but I'm anal enough.

I have an enormous library, and I love lending to friends... all too soon, though, you forget that you even lent the book/movie/CD out, and then months or years later you'll ask yourself "What on earth happened to X?".

I will definitely use that feature.

xmutex: No soup for you!
posted by silusGROK at 1:28 PM on October 26, 2004


Developing for IE only costs money if you insist on doing a lot of complex things that don't need to be done.

As someone who does CSS development every day (and none of it is "complex things that don't need to be done"), I can assure you: building for IE adds at least 20% to my development time. (Not including IE/Mac, which can add an additional 10%.)

I'm not saying the developer isn't an ignorant jerk, s/he may well be; all I'm saying is that there are legitimate business reasons not to build for IE these days. (Not forgetting legitimate security reasons.)
posted by o2b at 1:49 PM on October 26, 2004


How anal do you have to be to 'check out' your cds to your friends?!

Well, I don't have any check out system but I do have about 70 dvds out on loan at the moment. I also have a terrible memory. At present, I keep the cases and lend the discs out in teabag sleeves otherwise I'd forget I loaned them. It would be useful to have a convenient way to keep track I doubt I'd take the trouble to use software like this.
posted by dobbs at 1:54 PM on October 26, 2004


How anal do you have to be to 'check out' your cds to your friends?!

How many people have said "wow, you really need to read this book. Here, take my copy and get it back to me when you can." And then completely forgot to whom they lent the book? It isn't like writing your name inside the cover will help ;) I have multiple copies of CDs, books etc simply because I couldn't remember who I lent the item to.

This isn't useful to people who don't collect DVDs, CDs, Video games, books, etc. But it is invaluable to those of us who do. And I will be more likely to share things with friends if I have a way of keeping track of it.

The majority of Mac users are still using IE, not Safari (I'm sorry to say)

Support for that comment? I deleted IE the day I got my first Mac last year. It sucked ass (not to mention the worst freakin GUI I have ever seen on a client). Now I alternate between Safari and Firefox.

Also, I was able to view the Delicious Library site in Firefox PR1 on Windows and with Safari 1.0 and Firefox PR1 for Mac OS X.
posted by terrapin at 1:54 PM on October 26, 2004


Meh. Thumbnails don't impress me. I'm so used to listening to mp3 rips of my collection that I've flat-out forgotten what most of my album covers look like. Custom playlists (usually compiled by criteria such as composer, ensemble, or performer) have shot my memory even more to hell.

A pity I can't see the site - I'm curious what sort of fields and searching it supports. I've yet to find a killer classical music catalog system or one that scales well to mammoth collections that include cataloging annoyances such as compilations, genre & artist spanning entries, multiple peformances of the same songs, etc.
posted by Sangre Azul at 1:56 PM on October 26, 2004


Hmm, I take back the 'anal' comment. I guess I just don't have enough media or know people who do! I have 4 DVDs in my 'collection', Spinal Tap, Withnail and I, Blade Runner, and Beyond the Valley of the Dolls. Oh wait, 5... I lent the Office Season 1 to a friend and haven't gotten it back yet :) So maybe I do need this software.

Support for that comment? I deleted IE the day I got my first Mac last year. It sucked ass (not to mention the worst freakin GUI I have ever seen on a client). Now I alternate between Safari and Firefox.

If you can use GUI and client in the same sentence, you're not part of the majority of computer users, yes even mac users.
posted by cell divide at 2:13 PM on October 26, 2004


Developing for IE these days costs extra money.

Since IE still has ~95% of the marketshare, you could think of it another way: not developing for IE is going to cost you a ton of money.
posted by hyperizer at 2:28 PM on October 26, 2004


Re: IE/Mac market share, if you don't mind making some assumptions:

About a year ago (I think) Steve Jobs declared 45% penetration of OS X into the Mac market. My first assumption is that it has increased to greater than 50% during that time.

Even though IE is still pre-installed (at least it was when I bought my latest PB 3 months ago), it's not given any prominence, and you are introduced to Safari as you set up the machine. So, my second assumption is that the vast majority of OS X users are using Safari, or, rather, are not using IE.

My third assumption is this: IE is still used by the vast majority of surfers, but not through some (perhaps mis-guided) loyalty, but rather because of the lack of awareness of other options (or the inability to comprehend those options -- IE is "The Internet" for many many users, especially older users). From this I surmise that previous IE users won't necessarily seek out IE to use as their primary browser, but will use what is presented to them.

Given these assumptions, it's safe to conclude that IE is not used by at least 50% of Mac users.
posted by o2b at 2:34 PM on October 26, 2004


Since IE still has ~95% of the marketshare, you could think of it another way: not developing for IE is going to cost you a ton of money.

Lest you get the wrong idea, perhaps I should amend my statement to be:

"Having to build for IE adds at least 20% to my development time. (Not including IE/Mac, which adds an additional 10%, when it's required.)"

While I can understand the decision they made, it doesn't mean I would have made it.
posted by o2b at 2:37 PM on October 26, 2004


Wow, those guys must really hate Microsoft to go to the trouble to block IE users.

What ever Delicious Monster is, I won't being buying it.
posted by Argyle at 2:43 PM on October 26, 2004


As for what the majority of Mac users browse with: The last time I looked into it (which I did about two months ago in relation to a freelance job creating templates for a static website), it was a substantial majority -- something around 70%, though I don't remember the exact figures or where I got them from. As I google it right now, I see nobody (aside from Tim Bray) seems very interested in giving a breakdown for just the Mac.

As for why the site is blocking many users, I'll reiterate: It actually appears to have nothing to do with IE vs. anything. I don't know yet what the problem is, but it's not strictly speaking a Flash problem, I know that now for sure. It's probably something to do with his browser-detection routines, and from the speed of the redirect, I'd bet he's doing his "detection" based on an examination of the User Agent string on the server side. That's a dead loss from a detection standpoint; if you want to actually detect the capabilities of the browser you're serving to (which is what you should be doing), you really need to do it on the client, with JavaScript. There are plenty of folks who've built detection libraries that they're happy to have you steal; hell, just build your own once, and re-use it.

At this point, I'm guessing that the failure to load in Firefox might have something to do FireSomething (one of my favorite FF plugins...what can I say...). Which means that he's really looking at the wrong string.
posted by lodurr at 2:53 PM on October 26, 2004


you go lodurr. Heaven fobit anyone with a vision imparment or a slow link would be able to view this site.
posted by Mitheral at 2:54 PM on October 26, 2004


Aside: I recently found that coding for compatability with Konqueror and Safari has its own headaches. For example, both Konq and Safari have different inheritance rules for the left-margin property of a list; in that, they are directly incompatible with everything else. I was able to style-hack the differences between IE and Mozilla/FF, but I had to write a special JavaScript routine to accommodate Safari. It was a pain in the ass.
posted by lodurr at 2:56 PM on October 26, 2004


Great thread everyone... Browser WAR! Rock!
posted by maniactown at 3:22 PM on October 26, 2004


Good Lord, who cares about how they coded their website?! There are about 10,000 incredibly poorly coded websites out there on the internet. You all must spend your days in horrible anguish, faces flushed red, hearts pounding arrythmically, if all of them drive you this nuts.

Every time I want to watch a music video on Launch.com I have like a milisecond-long epileptic fit about how they should support standards, etc. etc. etc. Then it's over. Instead of arguing about developing for IE, everyone should just refer each other to different articles from A List Apart or something. I used to work in web design and freak out about this stuff too; eventually I learned that, while annoyance is a permissible response to someone's poorly coded website, personal hatred and vitriol is not. "He's an arrogant jerk"? What? For all you know he's spending his weekends helping out in the soup kitchen. More likely: he is a guy who is not as educated as you are about web design.

As for the app, it looks cool. I've tried several times to keep track of my books online (I use Singlefile), but I've just never kept up with the habit--I spend too much time reading them in the end. I have a feeling I'll regret this by the time I finish grad school....
posted by josh at 3:34 PM on October 26, 2004


Jesus. It says something about the maturity of MetaFilter members that the best we can do is snark about the HTML of the site linked to and impugn the competence of the people behind the product that the site promotes. I mean, it's a point, but it's really tangential: we don't need to go on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on about it. I mean, what is this -- Slashdot?

It's OS X-only software. If it's not working properly in IE for Mac (which, if I'm not mistaken, has been all but abandoned by OS X users; most of the IE/Mac users are probably running OS 9 or earlier), or on Linux browsers, or on IE/Win, it's unfortunate, and certainly a mistake from a PR perspective -- but it's not like they're catering to you, okay? They're not getting your $40 in any event.

Think Secret had a story (with screenshots) about Delicious Library back in August.

I've been waiting for this app with bated breath, and I'll probably buy it immediately. Our collection of books, CDs and DVDs must be in the high hundreds.
posted by mcwetboy at 4:33 PM on October 26, 2004


Looks pretty, but why aren't any of these "personal lending library" programs able to create a webpage to display the library to potential "renters"?

Bookpedia, DVDpedia, CDpedia, etc. do this. And most of the other features people have been discussing here. I'm currently working on scanning in all of my books with a CueCat.

Of course, the three programs aren't integrated, which is sort of a pain. But each program's features are specifically focused for books, DVDs, etc. Good stuff, really.
posted by litlnemo at 4:58 PM on October 26, 2004


Well, the asses at delicious-monster.com do not know what they are doing. The error page says it supports Windows/Netscape and it doesn't. Y'all can defend not coding for MSIE all you want. But since there is apparently nothing in the page that wouldn't be just fine in MSIE, Netscape, Opera, etc., etc., only an ass would present an obnoxious message instead of content.
posted by Zurishaddai at 5:23 PM on October 26, 2004


metafilter: It doesn't work in any of my fucking browsers. Oh wait, it needs flash.
posted by Keyser Soze at 6:37 PM on October 26, 2004


Oh, boy - a "realistic", cumbersome interface for my media library...

It's Microsoft Bob! For your media collection! By anti-Microsoft snobs!

Feh.
posted by FormlessOne at 6:37 PM on October 26, 2004


so basically what i'm getting from this thread is two things: (1) putting a <noscript> error redirect in HTML --> HEAD will make IE choke like nothing, and (2) nobody who uses windows reads, 'cause there's apparently nothing similar available for those of us who don't want to give up our precious second mouse button (if there was a windows version of a similar software package, someone would have linked it by now, right?)

o2b: i don't consider 82 validation errors "pretty darn good" html code. if i get one, i fix it. if it's my personal site, whatever, but it doesn't really help the image of the people making the software - if they can't do html, how do we expect them to build an actual program? i see the analogy there.

yes coding for IE is teh suXX0r, but any website selling anything should strive not to piss off a potential customer. how does the website know i'm not a mac user trying to view the product from a windows computer at work, etc? at the very least, not making the content accessible from any browser (never mind the pretty markup and all) is irresponsible.
posted by caution live frogs at 7:57 PM on October 26, 2004


The blog us link on the bottom of the main page chokes. It would seem this is the only way they can actually get some feedback from their vision quest. At least I got mozilla out of the deal.
posted by lightweight at 2:12 AM on October 27, 2004


A bit late, but I'll throw my two cents in, in response to the comment above: there are a few Windows book cataloguing packages out there (Readerware is the one I've used.) The problem with all these is that it's pulling data from another source, like Amazon, and I've found that the time saved in not typing the entries in manually is spent in correcting incorrect data.

I've had better luck using the default collection templates in Microsoft Works, and with the downloadable Microsoft Office book collection templates. I use the Excel one. I think there's also an Access one, but I don't use Access at home. I'm a fast typist, and when I do it myself, all the data is right.
posted by Electric Elf at 2:19 AM on October 27, 2004


It says something about the maturity of MetaFilter members that the best we can do is snark about the HTML of the site linked to and impugn the competence of the people behind the product that the site promotes. I mean, it's a point, but it's really tangential...

Well, no, it's not. Anything that says something about the developer's attention to detail, focus on usability, etc., is of value. These people have clearly made some really bad decisions about error-handling and target audiences, and it doesn't bode well for the design of the application.

Now, it may be that someone could make a great, usable application and then make a bunch of really arrogant or ignorant mistakes in coding the website that sells the application, but I tend to think -- based on experience as much as anything -- that the quality of the site probably correlates with the quality of the app.
posted by lodurr at 6:12 AM on October 27, 2004


Are there any free web sites or PC apps that do what Delicious Library does?
posted by aaronshaf at 8:17 AM on October 27, 2004


« Older Chris Harding Animation Concern:...  |  NSFW: Realdoll vs. Superbabe.... Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments