By the way, I've always wondered: Do premium members LIKE it when we make games available for premium members only,>

I sincerely want to follow site policies, guidelines, and practices, and I don't want my PGN upload-submissions to be rejected merely because I've included source tags in them. I apologize in advance if my having included source tags hitherto in my submissions has caused me unwittingly to run afoul of any site policies, guidelines, or practices, or has caused any difficulty or inconvenience in any wise to those who vet such submissions (who may, perhaps, have had to strip out the source tags because they have not yet been approved and instituted as regular parts of PGN upload submissions).

I have a couple of things to say.

First, in chessgames.com chessforum (kibitz #24817) Zanzibar says

<What is our goal?

Our goal is to develop a system that encourages biographers who actually contribute new PGN to use a <Source> tag.>

I agree completely.

<luftforlife> You seem to think that a source tag would be a reason to reject your PGN at this time. That's ridiculous. You can make a PGN tags called WhiteColorOfShoes and BlackColorOfShoes and we'll just happily ignore them, but an unknown source tag is never reason for alarm.

However, for right now, it won't be used. That gets back to Zanzibar's goal.

I brought up the issue of small citations vs long ones, and I mentioned a 32 character limit which I think some people took too seriously. It was mostly a thought experiment. 32 would be painfully short, we could surely get away with 60 to 70. I brought up the ultra-trim notion because, one: it's a good mental exercise, and 2: shorter fields really are better. If we decide to go with 64 we still should try to keep it short.

Some problems are begging to be addressed, like "Can you put quotation marks inside your citation and if so, how?" And, "Can you put a web link as a source?" I don't the answers to these off the top of my head.

Next, it should be noted that the new "Editor Notes" can be used exactly for the purpose of showing the game citation when known. So if there are multiple sources and web links and all sorts of fancy stuff that would never fit in a 64 character field, we can always fall back on that for a truly comprehensive treatment. It won't crop up a lot, but nice to know we have it when we need it.

On a related note, there is something that <zanzibar> said which I take exception to. I can't find the post offhand, but he said words to the effect that "the more data we have in the PGN, the better."

I think is not true, and it's somewhat important to realize that. It was never intended to be a single encapsulated blob of data which covers everything from annotation to web links to photographs. I even take exception with the practice of including clock-times, in spite of its uncanny rise in popularity.

The ChessBase Corporation has data files for chess gams which are a lot like what zanzibar envisions for PGN: not only can it have annotation, but video annotation, and clock times and photographs and a complete interactive experience. It's great for their format, but it would stretch PGN far beyond its intended purpose.

OK, you might say "You're being silly. When I said it should have as much data as possible I didn't mean multimedia, I meant simple ASCII facts in discrete tags." Even then, I have to say to consider the worth of each field carefully. I enjoyed (I think it was) MissScarlet's quip that we could have PGN tags that show what color shoes each player had on that day.

So all I'm saying is, new tags are great, but let's keep the new tags useful.

<IN SUMMARY>

Just so you know, my questions were not veiled complaints, and I did not intend by asking them to criticize anyone, especially you, in any way. Based in part on a recent comment by <MissScarlett> in the Biographer Bistro describing the use of source tags by biographers/editors as "[a] definite no-no," I grew concerned (and with some justification, as I understand from other members that the reasons for rejection of a PGN upload submission are often not given) that perhaps including a source tag would cause a PGN upload submission to "bounce back," as it were, due to some automated software feature of which I might have been unaware, or would cause the submission to be rejected by an administrator other than you for improper formatting or failure to conform to a given template for submissions. I did not mean to suggest that you were, or that anyone else was, looking to torpedo my or anyone else's PGN upload submissions for inclusion of a source tag, and I regret that perhaps my questions came across that way.

Bang (kibitz #133)

<zanzibar> I try very hard not to repeat my mistakes.

With all due respect, I could never have contemplated that, and I cannot comprehend how, my asking good-faith questions of you in this, the <chessgames.com> Member Support Forum, should have occasioned these derogatory comments that you made. Frankly, I find them objectionable, and so, respectfully, I do object to them. If my objections cause you to take further adverse action against me, so be it. I do not appreciate being singled out for mistreatment or being bullied by anyone -- even and especially by you.