[bksvol-discuss] Re: Requirements for acceptance -- the bottom line
- From: "Kenneth A. Cross" <crossk@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <bksvol-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 14 Aug 2004 20:39:02 -0400
It isn't fair
or reasonable of you to suggest that anyone in favor of one thing is
necessarily opposed to another. More specifically, I want to see books get
on the system as quickly as possible, but that in no way entitles you to
accuse me or anyone else of disregarding quality. Those who hold books for
weeks and then simply return them are serving neither end. Putting a book
up for those who want (and perhaps even need) it right now, even if it is
only good, won't in the least be bothered if it is later improved. Let me
say very clearly that I want the best possible books I can have, but only if
I have those books can I advance my own interests, even if those interests
involve making the book still better.----- Original Message -----
From: "Pratik Patel" <pratikp1@xxxxxxxxx>
To: <bksvol-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Saturday, August 14, 2004 6:58 PM
Subject: [bksvol-discuss] Re: Requirements for acceptance -- the bottom line
> Silvara,
>
> I think all of us have benefitted from your diligence and work on
correcting
> and ensuring that the books that you work on are as best as you can make
> them. Please don't think that your efforts are not appreciated. As ou
can
> see from recent posts, many of us agree with you when you say that quality
> is important. When we read your validations and submissions, we benefit
> from this careful sifting of material.
>
> Pratik
>
>
>
> Pratik Patel
> Managing Director
> CUNYAssistive Technology Services
> The City University of New York
> ppatel@xxxxxx
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: bksvol-discuss-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:bksvol-discuss-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Silvara
> Sent: Friday, August 13, 2004 10:38 PM
> To: bksvol-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: [bksvol-discuss] Re: Requirements for acceptance -- the bottom
line
>
> I have a couple of points that I'd like to discuss.
> What is readable is very subjective. As you stated Mary, what is
considered
> readable to one person can be totally frustrating for another. The
example
> about the term paper perfectly illustrates my feelings in this matter. I
> too, would like to know if it's possible to raise the quality standards
for
> bookshare. I totally love this idea of bookshare and how we can have
instant
> access to a wide variety of books. But I strongly feel that quality is
> important. After all, bookshare is not a free service. If we don't pay
> cash, we pay with our time.
>
> About 3 months ago I noticed that there were a lot of books waiting to be
> validated. Thus, over the past 3 months I've spent a lot of my free time
> validating. I've validated thirty something books during this period. I
> spent time doing some basic cleaning up so that these books could be even
> better. However, the comments by the powers-that- be, during this week
has
> lead me to feel that my efforts to improve the books were a waste of my
> time, and worse, not appreciated. I can not consciously approve books
> knowing that with a little extra time spent on the clean up process, the
> book's quality can approach near-perfection. Thus, the result is that I
> will have to think about how much time I want to devote to bookshare in
the
> future.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Mary Otten" <maryotten@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: <bksvol-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Friday, August 13, 2004 8:03 PM
> Subject: [bksvol-discuss] Re: Requirements for acceptance -- the bottom
line
>
>
> > Ah yes. the notion of what is readable is the rub in all of this.
Richard,
> I love your idea about the volunteers and validating.
> > But getting back to the idea of readable, consider, if you will, what
> would happen to you if you turned in a term paper, let's not even discuss
a
> thesis or disertation, just a garden variety term paper, and that paper
had
> > a bunch of cross-outs, scribblings, maybe a few coffee stains obscuring
> some of the text. What are the chances, do you suppose, that you would get
> anything but an F on that messy paper, 95 or even 98 percent of
> > which might be perfectly readable? Why the heck should people pay for
> anything less than the high end of "good" quality? Why shouldn't we as
> submitters of materials take enough pride in what we submit to want to
> > make it truly readable, i.e. containing some errors, but not so many
that
> the meaning of entire passages is garbled? Obviously, if you have an old
> book with a bad font that just won't ocr well, there's not a lot you can
> > do. I've got such a book that I keep trying, hoping that the next
> iteration of K1k will unlock the key to the crummy Soviet-era font and
paper
> on which the book was printed, so that I can actually enjoy reading the
> > book myself and have a decent enough scan to post for anybody else crazy
> enough to want to read this particular volume. <smile>
> > Somebody posted a question asking about how the standards were decided
> upon, or words to that effect. I too would be interested in that, and
would
> like to know if there is anything that we can do to revisit the issue
> > and get them raised. The word "readable" means very different things to
> different people, it would seem. Otherwise, we wouldn't have titles on the
> system with portions that are totally garbled and not at all readable.
> > Mary
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
Other related posts:
