Why can't every book have annotations at the bottom of the page?

File: one.jpg (280KB, 1029x1050px) Image search: [Google]

280KB, 1029x1050px

I mean, the above example is perfect. You have the text, and then you have annotations under them. Perfectly readable, if something gives you trouble, or you want to look at a highlight, just move your eyes to the bottom of the page.

And and then you have this nonsense. Text, easily missable number, annotation at the back of the book. You end up flipping the whole book like an idiot, ruining the bindings, and giving yourself a pneumonia by all the wind you're making.

depends on what you're going for. some people want just the text to be first and foremost, without the "distraction" of annotation.

File: 1441927949661.jpg (17KB, 320x229px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 320x229px

>>7631778

>tfw annotated words aren't marked or made distinct at all so you have to constantly keep in mind which line numbers are being annotated, distracting you from being fully immersed in the book

Because the poem is a work of art that doesn't need to have text that takes away the shape of the text. It would be ok for some studying version

>>7632109
>distracting you from being fully immersed in the book

I probably should add, I'm not really fully immersed if I don't know what something means anyway, but it's just easier to switch between the two if there are actual numbers next to the words.

>tfw can't help but favorite every new vocab word I come across on dictionary.com app
>used to try to commit it then and there, have satisfied my needs by returning to a laundry list of terms to handwrite out in a notebook
>waiting for the glorious day when rare is it that I break my attention to inculcate myself on terms

fuck. it does feel real damn good when I come across a rogue word in a novel that I barely recall, yet recall nevertheless. I just wish my journal pages didn't look silly with overtly new vocabulary when I read 19th century works.