Mary, you made good points. Guido, you have some good points, too. I'm correcting a supposedly Fair copy of Johnny Tremain that really should have been rated Poor, it's so bad. I keep telling myself that it would be faster to scan it and then prevalidate it, but I can't bring myself to do that. I know I'm probably wasting time because I think my scan would have fewer mistakes, but . . . no I feel guilty because I'll have one book to send up istead of four (smile). But the missing words in the books I was talking about would never have been noticed if I hadn't been reading the books. There were no spaces in the sentences to indicate that a word or several wre missing or that words were the wrong ones. It was only in the reading that I could tell something was wrong -- didn't make sense -- and then I could check the book to see what the correct word should be. In some cases it was what I would have put in if I didn't have the book, but in other cases it was something different -- not that it would have made a big difference to the reader. I suggested that the person who submitted all those txt Fair files that aren't getting validated download and reject them herself and resubmit them as rtf files. I assume she has the originals and could convert them to rtf before submitting them, and I'd be willing to validate them, since I've gathered from discussions here, as well as their popularity in the general population, that people do enjoy them for light reading, but as far as I know that hasn't been done. Cindy __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? All your favorites on one personal page ? Try My Yahoo! http://my.yahoo.com