[bksvol-discuss] Re: Quality checks procedure -- was WRe: Re: Self-validation

Guido,
I hate to reveal the depth of my ignorance, and as no one else has asked
the question, it must be deeper than I thought. 
What is the difference between a double single quote and a single double
quote and how can I tell them apart and replace one with the other. My
speech engine just says quote..

Jim



At 01:55 PM 6/18/04 -0500, you wrote:
>  
>   I found that the following set of checks tend to generate rather high
>results: 
> 
> 
>  sample every 20 pages. 
> 
> works best if the book uses the word 'chapter' or something else to search
>for. 
> 
> Definitely tedious, as I do it on each and every page.  
> 
>   I merge it with the last word on the previous page if appropriate. 
> 
>  These will let you find all sorts of words that were split at end of
>lines or at end of pages and can be repaired. 
>  
>      Remove manually each occurrence of these clustered nasty things as
>appropriate. 
>  
>    Remove or repair manually as required. 
> we can copy/paste them in the find dialogue to search for them in the
>document. 
> 
>    Do each change manually as appropriate. 
> 
>  in most cases that should be changed to I followed by apostrophes. 
> 
>  In most cases that is part of a '11, which should become an 'll. 
> 
> Do a mass replacement of double single quote with single double quote. 
> 
>     you may be deleting someone's middle initial. 
> 
>   
> 
>Hope this helps. 
> 
>Guido D. Corona
> Austin Tx.
> IBM Research,
> (512) 838-9735
> Email: guidoc@xxxxxxxxxxx
> 
> Visit my weekly Accessibility WebLog at:
> http://www-3.ibm.com/able/weblog/corona_weblog.html
> 
>  
> 
> 
>   <>  
>Sent by: bksvol-discuss-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx 06/18/2004 12:23 PM    Please
>respond to
> bksvol-discuss 
>     To bksvol-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx   cc    Subject [bksvol-discuss] Re:
>Self-validation 
>     
> 
> 
> 
> I completely concur!
> 
> The harsh 
> truth is, your own errors are much easier to miss, even if you've let that 
> I guess the urge to 
> self validate is a natural one, since people get submission credits and 
> I have a Kate 
> Wilhelm mystery that's been up there for some time now, and I want very 
> much to just validate the thing and get the credits and more importantly, 
>  I'm too aware of how 
> I think 
> the checks and balances that exist here--the ones that encourage others to 
> I realize 
> others will challenge my position, suggesting that self validation is 
> absolutely the only way some of the more esoteric titles will get 
>  The first book I ever validated was a Christian 
> romance--decidedly not, not, not something I would normally want to read 
> Oddly enough, that's precisely the reason I chose 
> I figured the material would be so new and different to me that I'd be 
> That book entered the Bookshare system with a 
>"" I spent some time with 
>"" rating, and it's now part of 
> the collection.
> 
> I don't use it as an example 
> Very nearly all of you have been at the 
> submission and validation end of this far longer than have I, and you're 
> doubtless the ultimate experts, having forgotten more in a day than I will 
> I just find self validation a little scary, especially in 
> light of rather strong messages lately which have called for higher quality 
> There's no doubt we achieve higher quality 
> validations if we don't do them ourselves.
> 
> magazine I edit goes through no fewer than four different 
> I'm 
> not advocating for absolute rigid perfection; we are volunteers, after all, 
> But self validation is an excellent way to increase the 
> number of potential errors into the system.
> 
> So that I don't totally come across here as being the loud mouthed whiner 
> If you have a book that's been up 
> there quite a while, I'll take yours and validate it, regardless of the 
> It's called 
>"" and it's 614 pages, so I'm 
> Obviously, 
><>
> 
> But in light of recent 
> messages that have called for higher standards in terms of better quality 
> scans and better validations, redoubling our resolve to let others validate 
> our work is probably one good way to ensure the increased quality of the 
> collection.
> 
> Best Regards,
> 
> Nolan, who is dawning his fire-retardant e-mail-reading suit in preparation 
> for all that indignant mail from self validators :-)
> 
> 
>  
>  --- Incoming mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus
>system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.699 / Virus Database: 456 -
>Release Date: 6/4/04 
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.699 / Virus Database: 456 - Release Date: 6/4/04

Other related posts: