[bksvol-discuss] Re: Quality and validation credits
- From: "Jake Brownell" <jabrown@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: <bksvol-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 27 Jun 2005 21:12:21 -0500
Hey Kaitlyn,
Yep if the book is in bad shape you'll pretty much end up reading the
whole thing if you choose to correct it.
There's no easy solution to this problem. From a personal standpoint, I
produce high quality scans and spend a few hours on each one. They don't
require a validator to do too much work on them. Should that person receive
just as much as I did? I don't think so, but then there's the opposite end
of the spectrum, a submitter who doesn't spend a lot of time on his/her
scans.
I do stand by the fact that BookShare should emphasize quality work by the
submitter, it's so much easier for the scanner to work on a book than a
validator. Making the credits equal seems to say that validation isn't the
smaller step it was originally intended for.
I truly appreciate all of you out there who take the time to cleanup and
turn bad submissions into high quality texts. I hate rejecting a book when I
choose to validate something as well. If it is in horrid shape though, I
have to ask myself how much is it worth to try and fix it? Are the errors
easily fixable? Am i going to have to guess on a lot of them? I won't spend
hours on something that could be more easily fixed by an hour with a scanner
and a copy of the book. Don't get me wrong I don't nuke everything in site,
I'll usually release a book back to the validation page if it doesn't look
too bad and I'm not interested. It's only the truly bad ones I'll take my
ax, ahem, rejection power to.
Cheers!
Jake
much as I did for the initial work.
Jake
----- Original Message -----
From: "Kaitlyn Hill" <Kaitlyn@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <bksvol-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Monday, June 27, 2005 8:56 PM
Subject: [bksvol-discuss] Re: Quality and validation credits
> Hi,
>
> What I am finding is if a book needs a lot of clean up you are basically
> reading the full book to do it.
>
>
> Kaitlyn
> Level III Practitioner
> Reconnective healing and the Reconnection
> Level 1 Reiki healing
> Kaitlyn@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> Life is not measured by the number of breaths you take but by the number
of
> moments that take your breath away:)
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: bksvol-discuss-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:bksvol-discuss-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Jake Brownell
> Sent: Sunday, June 26, 2005 11:45 PM
> To: bksvol-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: [bksvol-discuss] Re: Quality and validation credits
>
> Hey Cindy,
> I'll try and shed a little bit of light on why the system was set up
as
> such. Keep in mind I wasn't around here back then and so have learned it
> second hand.
>
> Originally validators were only able to see the first 5000 characters
of
> a book and the last 5000. Pushing validations thruogh was known as mass
> validation. This is why so many books in the collection have no synopsis.
> Either the book was donated by Project Gutenberg and so someone didn't
> necessarily read it, or the validator couldn't provide a synopsis when the
> submitter didn't because they couldn't read the book.
>
> I think making validations worth $1.00 would be worthwhile. I don't
> support anything more than that because I think validation needs to remain
a
> task that should not require as much work as scanning. With new volunteers
> joining we want to emphasize that a good scan is much preferred to a
> validator being forced to clean up a mess.
>
> I'm glad you're out there willing to validate because I rarely show the
> patience for it *grin*
>
> Jake
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Cindy" <popularplace@xxxxxxxxx>
> To: <bksvol-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: <support@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Monday, June 27, 2005 1:06 AM
> Subject: [bksvol-discuss] Re: Quality and validation credits
>
>
> > Yes,Kaitlyn, you understand perfectly. And as Robert
> > (I think) said, a lot of us have complained about this
> > for some time. While many, perhaps most, of you know
> > clean up your work carefully before submitting, so
> > that the validator has little to do, there are still
> > people who scan, maybe do a spell-check or not, and
> > submit. Since many people who validate take the time
> > to do so carefully and clean up those mistakes rather
> > than rejecting them out of hand, they deserve more
> > than 50 cents credit.
> >
> > ADMINISTRATORS: I understand that maybe when bookshare
> > was just getting started you wanted to encourage
> > submissions and maybe that's why so much credit was
> > given for them, but MAY I SUGGEST THAT NOW THAT THERE
> > ARE SO MANY BOOKS IN THE COLLECTION AND SO MANY BOOKS
> > ON THE PAGE ONE DOWNLOAD LIST THAT NEED TO VALIDATED
> > THAT THE CREDITS BE REVERSED, OR AT LEAST MADE EQUAL?
> > Maybe $1.50 for either submission or validation, if
> > you don't want to up it from $3 to $5.
> >
> > Cindy
> >
> > -- Kaitlyn Hill <Kaitlyn@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > > Hello Allison and Robert,
> > >
> > > Thanks for the info. So it seems that scanning is
> > > worth a lot more than
> > > validating.
> > >
> > > If I read Roberts note correctly...
> > > If you scan a book and upload it and it is released
> > > it's it $2.50. If the
> > > uploader validates that same book it is the $2.50
> > > plus the $0.50 for
> > > validating.
> > > Just validating is $0.50.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --- Kaitlyn Hill <Kaitlyn@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > > Hello Allison and Robert,
> > >
> > > Thanks for the info. So it seems that scanning is
> > > worth a lot more than
> > > validating.
> > >
> > > If I read Roberts note correctly...
> > > If you scan a book and upload it and it is released
> > > it's it $2.50. If the
> > > uploader validates that same book it is the $2.50
> > > plus the $0.50 for
> > > validating.
> > > Just validating is $0.50.
> > >
> > > Kaitlyn
> > > Level III Practitioner
> > > Reconnective healing and the Reconnection
> > > Level 1 Reiki healing
> > > Kaitlyn@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > >
> > > Life is not measured by the number of breaths you
> > > take but by the number of
> > > moments that take your breath away:)
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: bksvol-discuss-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > [mailto:bksvol-discuss-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On
> > > Behalf Of Allison Mervis
> > > Sent: Sunday, June 26, 2005 8:10 AM
> > > To: bksvol-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > Subject: [bksvol-discuss] Re: Quality and validation
> > > credits
> > >
> > > Hey there Kaitlyn!
> > > I believe it's $2.50 for each book you submit and
> > > $0.50 for every
> > > validation.
> > > Allison
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "Kaitlyn Hill" <Kaitlyn@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > To: <bksvol-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > Sent: Sunday, June 26, 2005 9:22 AM
> > > Subject: [bksvol-discuss] Quality and validation
> > > credits
> > >
> > >
> > > > Hello All:)
> > > >
> > > > It's a cloudy Sunday morning here in Portland and
> > > I'm off to the races:)
> > > > Dragon boat races that is.
> > > >
> > > > Two questions.
> > > > First for the K1000 users what is the general
> > > standard for spelling
> > > > ranging.
> > > > How low do people try to get that number. I know,
> > > 0 is ideal?
> > > >
> > > > Second, I have been a little unclear on the credit
> > > for scanning and
> > > > validating. What does one get for each? It seems I
> > > have heard some
> > > > different
> > > > numbers.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Kaitlyn
> > > > Level III Practitioner
> > > > Reconnective healing and the Reconnection
> > > > Level 1 Reiki healing
> > > > Kaitlyn@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > >
> > > > Life is not measured by the number of breaths you
> > > take but by the number
> > > > of
> > > > moments that take your breath away:)
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > __________________________________________________
> > Do You Yahoo!?
> > Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
> > http://mail.yahoo.com
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > No virus found in this incoming message.
> > Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
> > Version: 7.0.323 / Virus Database: 267.8.1/28 - Release Date: 6/24/2005
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
> Version: 7.0.323 / Virus Database: 267.8.1/28 - Release Date: 6/24/2005
>
>
Other related posts:
