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