[bksvol-discuss] Re: A Backward Step for Proofreaders?
- From: "siss52" <siss52@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <bksvol-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2009 01:30:31 -0600
Hi Evan,
I didn't see an acknowledgment either, and the character error recognition
percentage is not there. However, you can change anything on that metadata
form. There is a link below it that says, something like, click here to
edit the metadata information. You could change excellent to good, change
the number of pages, etc, and resubmit that form before your final checkin.
Proofreaders do still get the acceptance notoice when the book joins the
collection.
Sue S.
----- Original Message -----
From: EVAN REESE
To: bksvol-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Monday, January 12, 2009 11:40 PM
Subject: [bksvol-discuss] A Backward Step for Proofreaders?
Hello Folks,
I haven't checked in any books yet because I don't have any checked out for
proofreading at the moment. However, I listened today as Lissi checked in
two books she had on her checked out list.
It's possible that we may have missed it, but we did not find any of the
quality information that I found when I submitted a book today. Not only did
we not find the info about page breaks and page numbers, but we did not even
find the quality analysis that we former validators used to get. We both
found this to be very odd.
I do not know whether this is a bug, or intentional, but if the latter, I am
very curious as to the reason behind it.
By the way, there doesn't seem to be an option for changing the number of
pages given on the form. What if a submitter misses a few pages, or adds a
few duplicates? What's a proofreader to do?
It would be really cool if the proofreader could compare their quality
analysis with that of the book when it was submitted. It would show what a
difference a conscientious proofreader can, and often does, make to the
quality of a book.
But that is something for the wish list of future enhancements. At the
moment, all in all, as far as the actual check in process goes, it appears
that not only do proofreaders get less book info than submitters now get,
but they get less information than they used to have when preparing books
for the Admin Queue. I don't understand it, and I admit to feeling a bit sad
as I write this. This information is just as important to proofreaders as it
is to submitters. Perhaps more so, because the book is closer to the Admin
Queue at that point and proofreaders are supposed to be the ones doing the
final checks of these things to ensure the highest quality for our readers.
We didn't even find an acknowledgement of her time and effort, as we
validators used to see, nor of the fact that her books were added to the
Admin Queue when the check in process was completed. The only way she could
be sure they were gone was to check the number of books on her list to see
if it had changed.
As I said, we may possibly have missed some or all of these things, tooling
around as we were on a new site; and I would be very happy to be shown to be
wrong about any of this. But if my information is correct, then it is
unfortunate. I hope it is only a temporary working out of the kinks of the
new site.
Evan
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com
Version: 8.0.176 / Virus Database: 270.10.6/1888 - Release Date: 1/12/2009
7:04 AM
Other related posts:
