[bksvol-discuss] Re: An alternative to validating fair quality submissions
- From: "Gary Petraccaro" <garyp130@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <bksvol-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2008 18:46:46 -0500
You're costing BookShare money because they're paying twice for books,
keeping users dissatisfied, lowering the subscription and resubscription
rates, and giving bleeding heart the rep it disserves. Case in point: I
have enough creds to get a subscription, but what good does it do me when I
look at a book on my wife's shelves, say to myself that I want to read it,
just to find out that it's garbage and wind up scanning it myself anyway.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Donna Smith" <donnafsmith@xxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <bksvol-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Saturday, January 12, 2008 12:05 PM
Subject: [bksvol-discuss] Re: An alternative to validating fair quality
submissions
Good points all! The volunteer manual states:
Validators may recommend that a book be rejected for one of the following
reasons:
List of 5 items
. Book does not meet the
Requirements Which Books Must Meet Before Being Added to the Collection
. Book is of Poor scan-quality
. Book is not in the file format specified on the form.
. Book is already in the collection, and the existing copy does not need
to
be replaced.
. Book is a duplicate of a submission by the same volunteer.
list end
I browsed around through the manual, but didn't find any definition of
"poor
quality. Can anyone shed clarity on this?
I also understand about the credit thing. If a person can only maintain
their subscription to BookShare by submitting sloppy scans, then I
wouldn't
want to deny them their subscription. (I know.It's my bleeding heart
thing.)
So here's an alternative to the alternative: Those of us who wish to
replace a fair quality submission with a better scan, should download the
fair quality offering, validate it for administrative approval as a fair
quality book which would give the original scanner the credits, and then
submit a BSO version of the same book as a replacement for the one just
added to the collection. This creates a little extra work, but not as
much
as trying to clean up a bad scan. It would also move some of those books
which have been hanging around the step one page because no one wants to
touch them.
There must be a solution!
Donna
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.19.1/1220 - Release Date: 1/11/2008
6:09 PM
To unsubscribe from this list send a blank Email to
bksvol-discuss-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
put the word 'unsubscribe' by itself in the subject line. To get a list of
available commands, put the word 'help' by itself in the subject line.
- References:
Other related posts:
- » [bksvol-discuss] An alternative to validating fair quality submissions
- » [bksvol-discuss] Re: An alternative to validating fair quality submissions
- » [bksvol-discuss] Re: An alternative to validating fair quality submissions
- » [bksvol-discuss] Re: An alternative to validating fair quality submissions
- » [bksvol-discuss] Re: An alternative to validating fair quality submissions
- » [bksvol-discuss] Re: An alternative to validating fair quality submissions
- » [bksvol-discuss] Re: An alternative to validating fair quality submissions
- » [bksvol-discuss] Re: An alternative to validating fair quality submissions
- » [bksvol-discuss] Re: An alternative to validating fair quality submissions
- » [bksvol-discuss] Re: An alternative to validating fair quality submissions
- » [bksvol-discuss] Re: An alternative to validating fair quality submissions
- » [bksvol-discuss] Re: An alternative to validating fair quality submissions
- » [bksvol-discuss] Re: An alternative to validating fair quality submissions
- » [bksvol-discuss] Re: An alternative to validating fair quality submissions
- » [bksvol-discuss] Re: An alternative to validating fair quality submissions
- » [bksvol-discuss] Re: An alternative to validating fair quality submissions
- » [bksvol-discuss] Re: An alternative to validating fair quality submissions
- » [bksvol-discuss] Re: An alternative to validating fair quality submissions
- » [bksvol-discuss] Re: An alternative to validating fair quality submissions
- » [bksvol-discuss] Re: An alternative to validating fair quality submissions
- » [bksvol-discuss] Re: An alternative to validating fair quality submissions
- » [bksvol-discuss] Re: An alternative to validating fair quality submissions
- » [bksvol-discuss] Re: An alternative to validating fair quality submissions
- » [bksvol-discuss] Re: An alternative to validating fair quality submissions
- » [bksvol-discuss] Re: An alternative to validating fair quality submissions
- » [bksvol-discuss] Re: An alternative to validating fair quality submissions
- » [bksvol-discuss] Re: An alternative to validating fair quality submissions
- » [bksvol-discuss] Re: An alternative to validating fair quality submissions
- » [bksvol-discuss] Re: An alternative to validating fair quality submissions
- » [bksvol-discuss] Re: An alternative to validating fair quality submissions
- » [bksvol-discuss] Re: An alternative to validating fair quality submissions
- » [bksvol-discuss] Re: An alternative to validating fair quality submissions
- » [bksvol-discuss] Re: An alternative to validating fair quality submissions
- » [bksvol-discuss] Re: An alternative to validating fair quality submissions
- » [bksvol-discuss] Re: An alternative to validating fair quality submissions
- » [bksvol-discuss] Re: An alternative to validating fair quality submissions
- » [bksvol-discuss] Re: An alternative to validating fair quality submissions
- » [bksvol-discuss] Re: An alternative to validating fair quality submissions
- » [bksvol-discuss] Re: An alternative to validating fair quality submissions
- » [bksvol-discuss] Re: An alternative to validating fair quality submissions
- » [bksvol-discuss] Re: An alternative to validating fair quality submissions
- » [bksvol-discuss] Re: An alternative to validating fair quality submissions
- » [bksvol-discuss] Re: An alternative to validating fair quality submissions
- » [bksvol-discuss] Re: An alternative to validating fair quality submissions
- » [bksvol-discuss] Re: An alternative to validating fair quality submissions
- » [bksvol-discuss] Re: An alternative to validating fair quality submissions
- » [bksvol-discuss] Re: An alternative to validating fair quality submissions
- » [bksvol-discuss] Re: An alternative to validating fair quality submissions
- » [bksvol-discuss] Re: An alternative to validating fair quality submissions
- » [bksvol-discuss] Re: An alternative to validating fair quality submissions
- » [bksvol-discuss] Re: An alternative to validating fair quality submissions
- » [bksvol-discuss] Re: An alternative to validating fair quality submissions
- » [bksvol-discuss] Re: An alternative to validating fair quality submissions
- » [bksvol-discuss] Re: An alternative to validating fair quality submissions
- » [bksvol-discuss] Re: An alternative to validating fair quality submissions
- » [bksvol-discuss] Re: An alternative to validating fair quality submissions
- » [bksvol-discuss] Re: An alternative to validating fair quality submissions
- » [bksvol-discuss] Re: An alternative to validating fair quality submissions
- » [bksvol-discuss] Re: An alternative to validating fair quality submissions
- » [bksvol-discuss] Re: An alternative to validating fair quality submissions
- » [bksvol-discuss] Re: An alternative to validating fair quality submissions
- » [bksvol-discuss] Re: An alternative to validating fair quality submissions
- » [bksvol-discuss] Re: An alternative to validating fair quality submissions
- » [bksvol-discuss] Re: An alternative to validating fair quality submissions
- » [bksvol-discuss] Re: An alternative to validating fair quality submissions
- » [bksvol-discuss] Re: An alternative to validating fair quality submissions
- » [bksvol-discuss] Re: An alternative to validating fair quality submissions
- » [bksvol-discuss] Re: An alternative to validating fair quality submissions
- » [bksvol-discuss] Re: An alternative to validating fair quality submissions
- » [bksvol-discuss] Re: An alternative to validating fair quality submissions
- » [bksvol-discuss] Re: An alternative to validating fair quality submissions
- » [bksvol-discuss] Re: An alternative to validating fair quality submissions
- » [bksvol-discuss] Re: An alternative to validating fair quality submissions
- » [bksvol-discuss] Re: An alternative to validating fair quality submissions
- » [bksvol-discuss] Re: An alternative to validating fair quality submissions
- » [bksvol-discuss] Re: An alternative to validating fair quality submissions
- » [bksvol-discuss] Re: An alternative to validating fair quality submissions
- » [bksvol-discuss] Re: An alternative to validating fair quality submissions
- » [bksvol-discuss] Re: An alternative to validating fair quality submissions
Good points all! The volunteer manual states: Validators may recommend that a book be rejected for one of the following reasons: List of 5 items . Book does not meet the Requirements Which Books Must Meet Before Being Added to the Collection . Book is of Poor scan-quality . Book is not in the file format specified on the form.. Book is already in the collection, and the existing copy does not need to
be replaced. . Book is a duplicate of a submission by the same volunteer. list endI browsed around through the manual, but didn't find any definition of "poor
quality. Can anyone shed clarity on this? I also understand about the credit thing. If a person can only maintaintheir subscription to BookShare by submitting sloppy scans, then I wouldn't
want to deny them their subscription. (I know.It's my bleeding heart thing.) So here's an alternative to the alternative: Those of us who wish to replace a fair quality submission with a better scan, should download the fair quality offering, validate it for administrative approval as a fair quality book which would give the original scanner the credits, and then submit a BSO version of the same book as a replacement for the one justadded to the collection. This creates a little extra work, but not as much
as trying to clean up a bad scan. It would also move some of those books which have been hanging around the step one page because no one wants to touch them. There must be a solution! Donna