[bksvol-discuss] My cookbook
- From: "Charlene" <caota@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <bksvol-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2005 20:49:38 -1000
Okay, I'm going to submit my book and just hope for the best. I'm
always trying to leave the books in as much the same way as the print as
I can, so who knows what will happen. The page numbers are at the
bottom with a footer, maybe one of you guys can figure out what's best
for the poor thing! (smile!) I guess for the time being, I'll keep
doing my scanning and contributing books in the best shape I can and
those of you who validate, I'll leave I to you to figure it all out!
Thanks for all your comments and responses to me, too!
Aloha!
Charlene
-----Original Message-----
From: bksvol-discuss-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:bksvol-discuss-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Silvara
Sent: Tuesday, July 26, 2005 4:20 PM
To: bksvol-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [bksvol-discuss] Re: validating
The K1000 rating is helpful to know.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Kaitlyn Hill" <Kaitlyn@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <bksvol-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Tuesday, July 26, 2005 9:51 PM
Subject: [bksvol-discuss] Re: validating
> Hi E,
>
> Yes, since excellent can vary a lot I figure give the info. I know I
> could do the last of the check and maybe find those last 100 or so
> words but it gives a validators an easy validating.
>
> :)
>
> Kaitlyn
> Level III Practitioner
> Reconnective healing and the Reconnection
> Level 1 Reiki healing
> Kaitlyn@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Find your vessel and fill it wih the light and with the light behind
> the light,Then let the light shine for the world so others may know
> the truth -----Original Message-----
> From: bksvol-discuss-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:bksvol-discuss-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of E.
> Sent: Tuesday, July 26, 2005 6:20 PM
> To: bksvol-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: [bksvol-discuss] Re: validating
>
> As a long time validator, thank you. That is exactly what a validator
> needs, some idea of ratings and a way of contacting you directly.
>
> E.
> At 09:05 PM 7/26/2005, you wrote:
>
>>Hello Everyone,
>>
>>What I have started doing when I scan a book that I may not want to
>>read...
>>For example some of the books that have been sent to me to scan, I put
the
>>recognition rating and number of miss spelled words according to the
rank
>>spelling in the comments so that the validators have a sense of the
> quality.
>>Also I put my contact info in there incase the validators has a
>>questions.
>>
>>
>>Kaitlyn
>>Level III Practitioner
>>Reconnective healing and the Reconnection
>>Level 1 Reiki healing
>>Kaitlyn@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>Find your vessel and fill it wih the light and with the light behind
>>the light,Then let the light shine for the world so others may know
>>the truth
>>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: bksvol-discuss-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>[mailto:bksvol-discuss-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Julie
>>Morales
>>Sent: Tuesday, July 26, 2005 5:07 PM
>>To: bksvol-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>Subject: [bksvol-discuss] Re: validating
>>
>>I do scan things sometimes that I may not be interested in if someone
>>asks for it, and if it's not too long, I'll read through it even then,
>>but if it's something long, if someone asks for it, I ask if someone
>>will be willing to validate it, anyway, even though I may not be able
>>to speak of the quality. Take care. Julie Morales
>>inlovewithchrist@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>Windows/MSN Messenger (but not email):
>>mercy0421@xxxxxxxxxxx
>>----- Original Message -----
>>From: "Sarah Van Oosterwijck" <curiousentity@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>To: <bksvol-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>Sent: Tuesday, July 26, 2005 8:33 AM
>>Subject: [bksvol-discuss] Re: validating
>>
>>
>>I don't scan things I have no interest in, so I do the same. I would
>>be short changing both myself and bookshare if I didn't read and
>>correct what I scanned. Besides, I'm a procrastinating perfectionist.
>>:-) That means I have more fun reading and correcting my books than
>>going through the upload
>>process.
>>
>>Sarah Van Oosterwijck
>>Assistive Technology Trainer http://home.earthlink.net/~netentity
>>
>>----- Original Message -----
>>From: "Scott Blanks" <scottsjb@xxxxxxxxx>
>>To: <bksvol-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>Sent: Tuesday, July 26, 2005 5:45 AM
>>Subject: [bksvol-discuss] Re: validating
>>
>>
>> > Weighing in on the validation discussion ...
>> >
>> > I suspect there are two types of submitters. One type scans a book
>> > without paying much attention to the content until after they've
> scanned,
>> > if at all. The other submitter reads the book as they go. I happen
>> > to belong to the latter group. You guys might think I'm strange,
>> > but I
> enjoy
>> > reading the book as I scan it. And an advantage to this is that I
>> > get
>> > to
>> > know the book quite well. Thus, I feel its perfectly acceptable for
me
> to
>> > do the validation, because there simply isn't a very high
>> > likelihood
> that
>> > anyone will know the book as well as I do. Someone here mentioned
>> > that one shouldn't validate the books they submit because they
>> > might be too "close" to the book. I guess I can maybe see that
>> > point, but my initial feeling is that, at least in my case, yes, I
>> > want the books on the site, but I really want those books to be as
>> > close to pristine as possible. I would *never* knowingly rush a
>> > book through either the scan or the validation just to get it on
>> > the site. I really enjoy the challenge of producing a clean result.
>> >
>> > I know this might be the exception rather than the rule, but I just
>> > wanted to throw my thoughts into the pot.
>> >
>> > Scott
>> >
>> >
>> > ----- Original Message -----
>> > From: "Julie Morales" <inlovewithchrist@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> > To: <bksvol-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> > Sent: Tuesday, July 26, 2005 3:27 AM
>> > Subject: [bksvol-discuss] Re: validating
>> >
>> >
>> >> Hi, Joanie. But how would one know that the submitter did pay that
>> >> much
>> >> attention to detail? How would one know that the submitter did
read
>> >> the
>> >> book
>> >> entirely through? All of the Janette Oke books I've been
submitting
> have
>> >> been read completely through. They are of excellent quality.
>> >> Kurzweil's
>> >> ranked spelling proves that. Most of them are at least 99.8
percent
>> >> accurate
>> >> or better. Is that good? Certainly, but don't take my word for it.
>> >> *smile*
>> >> I'm not saying anyone would do this, but it's possible that
someone
>> >> could
>> >> say they read the book completely through in hopes of speeding up
the
>> >> process when, maybe, in fact, they did not. I think having another
>> >> person
>> >> validate is a good form of checks and balances and support it. I
think
>> >> it's
>> >> a necessary part of making sure Bookshare stays true to what it
was
>> >> meant to
>> >> be, and we do have copyright to think about. What if a submitter
did
>> >> validate their own submission and something in that area was
missing?
>> >> Those
>> >> are just my thoughts, anyway. Take care.
>> >> Julie Morales
>> >> inlovewithchrist@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> >> Windows/MSN Messenger (but not email):
>> >> mercy0421@xxxxxxxxxxx
>> >> ----- Original Message -----
>> >> From: "CJ Vining" <Vining@xxxxxxxxxx>
>> >> To: <bksvol-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> >> Sent: Monday, July 25, 2005 10:01 PM
>> >> Subject: [bksvol-discuss] Re: validating
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> That's one opinion I don't happen to agree with. If the book
>> >> scanned poorly, then yes, a second person looking at the file may
>> >> be a good idea, but
> if
>> >> it's a near excellent scan to begin with, and the book is being
>> >> read cover to cover anyway by the submitter, I don't see why that
>> >> person's validation
>> >> is any less valuable than someone else's. The book is still being
read
>> >> with
>> >> the same attention to detail as one would give to a book one did
not
>> >> scan.
>> >>
>> >> Joanie
>> >>
>> >> ----- Original Message -----
>> >> From: "Rui" <goldWave@xxxxxxx>
>> >> To: <bksvol-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> >> Sent: Monday, July 25, 2005 8:51 PM
>> >> Subject: [bksvol-discuss] Re: validating
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>> (this is a repost of a message i wrote on 6/18/04)
>> >>>
>> >>> Hi Everyone:
>> >>>
>> >>> I am very glad that all the text quality people have come out of
>> >>> the shadows. There is only one more thing I would ask.
>> >>> Please do not self-validate.
>> >>> If your book has been sitting on the mountain of step 1 books for
a
>> >>> while,
>> >>> (2 weeks of more) perhaps you could point that book out to the
list.
>> >>> I truly feel it is very worthwhile to have a second pair of eyes
>> >>> (pardon
>> >> the
>> >>> pun) look at the book.
>> >>> That's why writers don't proofread their own books, a second
>> >>> person
>> >>> is
>> >> lible
>> >>> to catch more.
>> >>>
>> >>> I hope my text quality bretheron share my views on this.
>> >>>
>> >>> -- Rui
>> >>>
>> >>> ----- Original Message -----
>> >>> From: "Hope Hein" <hmhein@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>> >>> To: <bksvol-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> >>> Sent: Monday, July 25, 2005 11:25 PM
>> >>> Subject: [bksvol-discuss] validating
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> >I am trying to validate This Side of HEAVEN. I down loaded it in
>> >>> >to
> my
>> >>> >documents, then unzipped it, then brought it up in word. Lastly
>> >>> >I changed the file name so it could be edited. I found many
>> >>> >errors as well as
>> >> missing
>> >>> >words or even possibly sentences. I am correcting the errors and
>> >>> >trying
>> >> to
>> >>> >figure out what is supposed to be written to complete missing
>> >>> >sentences.
>> >> It
>> >>> >is so garbled in some spots that I am going to check it out of
>> >>> >the
>> >> library
>> >>> >and try a rescan. The reason I am saying all of this is two
>> >>> >fold.
>> >> Firstly,
>> >>> >could my computer be doing something I.a. taking out words or
>> >>> >not showing them to me? Secondly, could the people who scan the
>> >>> >books also validate
>> >>> >them since they have the print copies? This is just a
suggestion. I
>> >>> >know
>> >>> >that I am knew and do not know much about scanning and
validating.
> You
>> >> all
>> >>> >are doing a wonderful job and it is a privilege to read the
>> >>> >books. I just wonder if the books could be scanned and
>> >>> >validated by the same
> person
>> >>> >it
>> >>> >would save time and frustration. I have tried to validate four
>> >>> >books and only one has made it so far.
>> >>> >
>> >>> > I would be grateful for any suggestions if anyone thinks my
>> >>> > computer
>> >>> > may
>> >>> > be causing some of the missing lines. Also, please give me
feedback
>> >>> > on
>> >>> > what you think of the same person scanning and validating.
>> >>> > Thank you
>> >>> > I love Book Share and truly want to make it the best it can be.
>> >>> > Hope
>> >>> >
>> >>> >
>> >>> >
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > --
>> > No virus found in this incoming message.
>> > Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
>> > Version: 7.0.338 / Virus Database: 267.9.5/58 - Release Date:
>> > 7/25/2005
>> >
>> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
> Version: 7.0.338 / Virus Database: 267.9.5/58 - Release Date:
7/25/2005
>
--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.338 / Virus Database: 267.9.5/58 - Release Date: 7/25/2005
Other related posts:
- » [bksvol-discuss] My cookbook
