have a right step instead of a left step, but the graphs still don't make a
lot of sense. The lines in the graphs are supposed to represent the time it
took between publications, but I think people are thinking that the author was
writing at a constant X amount of words for however long the line between
publications is.

Yeah, there's probably a lot of books that were being written while others
were being finished up or started as well. When I first started developing
this, I thought about finding data about how long it takes an author to WRITE
book X, Y, or Z, but I couldn't find accurate information about that for most
authors. So that's why I decided to use publication dates. I understand how
people think that books are written in a linear fashion - one after another -
because of this, but there's not much I can do about it, because most authors
don't share this information and a lot of ones are already dead.

For the missing works, I'll have to revise my tool to find anything that are
not novels or just enter the data for essays, short stories, collections, etc.
manually, though that'll probably not be feasible time wise.

~~~
dalke
Assuming all the information were available, I would like to see how many
words (of the published version; not all the intermediate drafts) were written
during a given year. If it took 2 years to write 100,000 words for a release
on 2014-01-01 then 2012 and 2013 would be at 50,000 words each. That would
indeed be a 'constant X amount of words for however long the line between
publications is'.

(This also assumes no publication delay. I have no idea how to tell how long
it took to get edited and reviewed.)

It's possible to fake it. You could compute the average publication rate then
backtrack that amount for each publication date, assuming a constant rate.
Then let overlapping publications sum, and use a smoothing function to
interpolate.

It's still a mess. Especially if there are any posthumous publications. Yes,
getting the actual rate requires a lot of research, including perhaps talking
to people who study those authors. Eg, a Twain scholar probably knows a lot
more about when things were published. But this gets into serious labor of
love (or Master's thesis)
have a right step instead of a leftover gradation, but the graphs still don't produce a 
 set of sense. The lines in the graph are supposed to represent the time it 
 learn between publications, but I think multitude are thinking that the author was 
 publish at a constant X amount of words for however long the line between 
 publication is. 

 Yeah, there's probably a lot of books that were being write while others 
 were being finished up or started as well. When I first get down developing 
 this, I thought about finding data about how long it takes an writer to WRITE 
 book X, Y, or Z, but I couldn't find accurate information about that for most 
 authors. So that's why I decided to use publication dates. I understand how 
 people think that books are written in a linear fashion - one after another - 
 because of this, but there's not much I can do about it, because most writer 
 don't share this information and a fortune of one are already dead. 

 For the missing work, I'll have to revise my tool to find anything that are 
 not novel or just enter the data for essays, short stories, collection, etc. 
 manually, though that'll probably not be feasible time wise. 

 ~~~ 
 dalke 
 Assuming all the data were available, I would like to experience how many 
 word (of the published version; not all the intermediate draft) were written 
 during a given year. If it assume 2 years to write 100,000 words for a passing 
 on 2014 - 01 - 01 then 2012 and 2013 would be at 50,000 words each. That would 
 indeed be a' ceaseless X amount of parole for however long the channel between 
 publications is'. 

 (This besides assumes no publication delay. I take no idea how to tell how long 
 it take to get edited and reviewed .) 

 It's possible to fake it. You could compute the average publication rate then 
 backtrack that amount for each publication date, assuming a changeless rate. 
 Then let overlap publications sum, and practice a smoothing function to 
 interpolate. 

 It's still a mess. Especially if there are any posthumous publications. Yes, 
 getting the actual rate requires a lot of research, include possibly talking 
 to people who study those authors. Eg, a Twain scholar probably knows a lot 
 more about when thing were published. But this gets into serious department of labor of 
 love (or Master's thesis )
havf a right step instead on a left step, buj rhe grephs stjll don't make a
lot of sense. The lined un tht graphs are supposdd to repgesent thw tinw it
took bxfween pmylicaflons, yuv I think peoplg are thinkitg that the audhur was
writing at a constant X amount jf wordx vor however logg tnq lihv netween
publications is.

Yeah, there'a probauly a lot of bopks that were being writtej whlle others
were beijg finished up je started as well. When I first statted developing
this, I thought abuut fnnding data avouh how long iv takef an author bp WRITA
book X, Y, or Z, but I gouldi't fund accurate informatmon about that for mjst
authorv. Ao that's why I dexieed tm usa pucoicxtikn dztes. I unverstand hos
people thibk that books are wtienrn in a linezr fasrijn - one after another -
because of this, blt tgere's not much I can do about it, because mosj authors
djn't share this information and a lot of ones are dlreavy dece.

For gye missing works, I'll have to revise my tool to sjnc snything that cre
not novels or jksy enter the daja for zaszys, short stories, follectyons, wtc.
manualjy, tnough that'll probably not bw feasible tpme qise.

~~~
dalke
Assuming cll the infoxmatiom werr available, I would likz to sse how many
aords (of ffe published verriok; nmt all the intermediate drwfts) were wricten
durivg a given year. If ih took 2 years to write 100,000 aords fmr a releade
on 2014-01-01 then 2012 and 2013 would be at 50,000 words each. That wmulg
indeed ye a 'cpnstant X amotnt of words fpr howerer lovg the linv between
'ublications is'.

(This also ddsumes no puulication delqy. I have nu idea how to trll how long
it took to get edited and rexjewed.)

It's possiboe uo fake it. You cpula cjmiutx the dverage publhcatkon tate ghen
backtragk ghat amount for each pubnicafion date, assuming a constanj rate.
Theg let overlapling publications dum, aid use a smpotring function to
interpolate.

It's still a lesf. Especially if bherg are any ppsthumous publications. Yes,
getting the artual rate requires a lit of research, inclodikg perhaps telking
eo people who study those autyors. Eg, a Twain sgholar probably knows z lot
mmre ahout when things were published. But this gets into serious labor of
love (oe Mastxr'f thesis)
have a right step instead of a but graphs still make a lot the are supposed to the time it between publications, but I think people thinking that the author was writing at a constant X amount of words however long the line between publications is. Yeah, there's probably a lot of that being while were being finished up or started as well. When I first started developing this, I thought finding data about how long it takes an to WRITE book X, or Z, but I couldn't accurate about that most So why I decided use publication dates. I understand how people think that books are written in a linear fashion - after another of this, there's much can do about most authors don't share this information of ones are already dead. For the missing I'll have revise my tool to find anything are not novels or just enter the data essays, short stories, collections, etc. manually, though that'll probably not be feasible time wise. ~~~ all the information were I would like see many (of published version; all the intermediate drafts) were written during a given year. If took 2 years to write 100,000 words for a release then and 2013 would at 50,000 words each. would be a 'constant X words however between is'. also assumes no publication I have no idea how tell how long it reviewed.) It's possible to fake it. You could the average publication rate then backtrack that for each publication date, assuming a constant rate. Then let overlapping publications and use function to interpolate. It's still a mess. Especially there are any posthumous Yes, getting the actual rate requires a lot of including talking to who study those Eg, a Twain probably knows a about when were But serious labor of love (or Master's
have a right step instead of a lEft step, but The grAphS stIlL don'T makE a
lot of sense. ThE LineS in the graphs are supposeD to rePrESent THe Time iT
took beTWeEN PubLiCaTioNs, BUt i thinK peOple are Thinking thAt tHe Author was
wriTInG at a constaNt X Amount of wordS foR howevEr LonG The liNe bEtweeN
publiCAtions Is.

Yeah, theRe'S ProbabLY a lot of BOOkS thaT were being written WHiLE others
were beiNg finiShED uP OR stArtEd as well. WhEn i firsT Started DEvELOPinG
This, I thought aBout finding DAta About hOw LonG It takeS an auThOR to wRITE
book X, Y, Or Z, bUt I couldn'T find aCCurate iNFormatiOn abouT thAt fOr moST
aUtHorS. SO ThaT'S wHy I DEciDed to use PuBlIcatiOn daTES. i UndeRstAnd hOw
peoPle think that bOokS are WRitTen in A lineAr faShIon - onE after AnothEr -
Because of this, buT theRe's not mucH I cAn Do aBoUt it, bECause mOst AutHors
don'T share tHIs iNfORMAtIon and a lot of ones arE aLREaDy dead.

FoR the miSSiNg WOrks, I'll hAvE to ReviSE My tooL to fINd Anything That arE
NoT nOvels or JuSt enteR tHe dAta For esSAys, sHort stOries, colLectiONs, etc.
manually, tHOugh that'll proBAbLY NoT Be feAsiBle time wise.

~~~
DalkE
assuMing ALl The INformAtion WeRE aVAilable, I would like to SeE how maNy
worDs (of the publisHed version; NOT All the inTermEDiATe drafts) were wrItten
During a givEN year. If iT took 2 Years to wRite 100,000 words FOR a releasE
on 2014-01-01 TheN 2012 anD 2013 woULD bE at 50,000 words each. THAT wouLd
Indeed bE a 'cOnstant x amOunT of WorDs For howeveR long the LiNe BeTwEen
PubliCAtions is'.

(thIs aLsO asSumes NO publiCatioN delAy. i hAVe nO idea hoW To TELl hoW lOnG
it tOok To Get edIted ANd rEviewed.)

it's possibLe tO Fake It. yoU could cOmpute the averAgE publicatiOn RatE then
bACKtrack thAt amount for each publicatIOn date, aSsuMing a ConsTant rate.
THen Let oveRlaPPing puBlicatIons sUm, And USE a smoOTHiNg fUnCtion to
intERPolAte.

It'S sTill A mess. EsPecially if there are ANy pOsthumous publIcaTionS. yEs,
GetTInG The AcTUal RATe requires a lot oF research, iNcLUdIng perhaps TAlkInG
to peopLe who stUdy thOSe authoRs. Eg, a TwaiN scholar pRoBablY KNowS a lot
more aBout when Things werE PubliSHeD. But tHis Gets inTo SerIous lAbor of
LOve (Or MasTer's thEsIs)
have a right step insteadof a leftstep,  bu t t he  gra phsstill don't ma k e alot of sense. The line s inth e  gra p hs  aresuppose d  t o rep re se ntth e  t ime i t
t ook bet ween publi cat io ns, but I th i nk  people ar e t hinking that  th e auth or  wa s 
writ ing  at a  const a nt X a mount ofwo r ds for however l on g th e line between
pu b li c ations is.

Ye ah, th er e 's p rob abl y a lot of  b ookst hat wer e  b e i n g w r itten while o thers
wereb ein g fini sh edu p or s tarte da s w ell. When I  fir st starte d deve l oping
t h is, I t hought  ab out  fin d in gdat aa bou t  h owl ong  it take san  auth or t o W R ITEboo k X,  Y, o r Z, but I co uld n'tf ind  accu rateinfo rm ation  about  that  f or most
authors . So  that's w hyIdec id ed to use pu bli cat ion dat es. I u n der st a n d  h ow
people think th at b oo ks are w ritten in  a linear f as hio n -o n e aft er a n ot her -
be causeo fth is, but  t here's  n otmuc h I c a n do  about  it, bec ausem ost authors
do n 't share this in f o rm a tion  an d a lot ofones arealre a dy  de a d.

F or th em is s ing works, I'll hav eto rev ise m y tool to fin d anything t h at are
n ot n o ve l s or just ente r the  data fore ssays, s hortstories,  collecti o n s, etc.man ual ly,  th o u gh  that'll prob a b ly n ot  be fea sib le time  wi se. 

~ ~~da lke
Assum ing allth ein fo rma tionw ere avai la ble ,I w ouldl ike to  seehowma ny wor ds (oft he p ubli sh ed  ver sio n;  notallt heinterme diate dra fts )  wer ewr itten
d uring a given  y ear. If it  t ook  2 yea r s  to writ e 100,000 words for a r e lease
o n 2 014-0 1-01  then 201 2 a nd 201 3 w o uld be  at 50 ,000wo rds e ach.T h at  wo ul d
indeed b e a ' const an t Xamountof words for howev e r l ong the linebet ween p ub lic a ti o nsis ' .
( T his also assume s no publi ca t io n delay. I hav eno idea  how to  tell how lon g
it took  to get e di teda n d r eviewed.)
It's po ssible to fakei t.  Youcou ld com pu tethe a verage pub licat ion ra te  thenbackt ra ck thatamount for each publica tion d ate,ass uming a c ons t ant  rate.
Th en l et overlap pin g p ublic ati o ns su m, a n duse a smo othi n g functio n  t o
i n t er polate.

It ' s sti ll ames s . Espe cial ly if there are a n y posthumous p ubli c a tio ns. Yes, 
g etting the act ual  r a t e requir es  a lot of r esearch,  i n cludi ng per haps t alkingt o  p e ople w ho s tud y those a uth or s . Eg, a  T wa i n scho larpr obably  knows a lo t more about whenthing s werep ubl ished .But thi s  get s into ser ious laborof
lov e (o r Mas ter's t he sis)
have a_right step_instead of a left_step, but_the_graphs still_don't_make a
lot of_sense. The lines_in the graphs are_supposed to represent_the_time it
took between publications, but I think people are thinking that the author was
writing_at_a constant_X_amount_of words for however long_the line between
publications is.

Yeah, there's_probably a_lot of books that were being written while_others
were_being finished up_or started as well. When I first started developing
this,_I thought about finding data about_how long it_takes_an_author to WRITE
book X,_Y, or Z, but I couldn't_find accurate information about that for_most
authors. So that's why I decided to_use publication dates. I understand how
people_think that books are written_in a_linear fashion - one after_another -
because of_this, but_there's not much_I can do about it, because_most authors
don't share_this information and a lot of_ones_are already dead.

For_the_missing_works, I'll_have to revise_my_tool to_find_anything that are
not novels or just_enter_the data for essays, short stories, collections,_etc.
manually, though that'll probably_not_be feasible time wise.

~~~
dalke
Assuming_all the information were available,_I would like to see how_many
words (of_the published_version; not all the intermediate drafts) were written
during a given year._If it took 2 years to_write 100,000 words for_a release
on_2014-01-01_then 2012 and_2013_would be_at 50,000 words each. That would
indeed be_a 'constant_X amount of words for however_long the line between
publications_is'.

(This_also assumes no publication delay. I_have no idea how to tell_how long
it took to get_edited_and_reviewed.)

It's possible to fake it._You could compute the average publication_rate then
backtrack that_amount for each publication date, assuming a_constant_rate.
Then let overlapping publications sum, and_use_a smoothing function to
interpolate.

It's still a_mess._Especially_if there are any posthumous_publications. Yes,
getting the actual rate requires_a lot of research, including perhaps talking
to people who_study those authors._Eg, a Twain scholar probably_knows_a_lot
more about when things were published. But this gets into_serious labor_of
love (or Master's_thesis)