[bksvol-discuss] Re: Validators
- From: "siss52" <siss52@xxxxxxx>
- To: <bksvol-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 6 Oct 2005 13:53:36 -0500
If the author and title headings, aas well as the chapter headings are at
the tops of pages, and the page numbers are there as well, can one assume MS
Word is not messing things up? That is, as long as nothing seems to be
missing from the text?
Sue S.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jana Jackson" <jana@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <bksvol-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Thursday, October 06, 2005 1:28 PM
Subject: [bksvol-discuss] Re: Validators
> Another thing that helps validators is the comments left by the submitter.
> It's very helpful if a submitter leaves comments explaining the work that
> has already been done, i.e. chapter headings protected, junk characters
> removed, etc.
>
> Jana
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "E." <thoth93@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: <bksvol-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Thursday, October 06, 2005 7:15 AM
> Subject: [bksvol-discuss] Re: Validators
>
>
> > Then we need to get the submitter and validator to speak to each other
so
> > some books at least can be tracked. The two of them can find out what
> > software and conditions existed at all stages of the document's life.
We
> > can learn how to get this to work if we analyze specific cases.
> >
> > E.
> >
> >
> > At 08:12 AM 10/6/2005, you wrote:
> >
> >>Tracy
> >>
> >>I am sure that you have improved the quality of many books -- that was
not
> >>my point.
> >>Rather, and I speak from observation, I am suggesting that it is
possible
> >>that a validator can hurt and not assist the quality of a book in some
> >>instances.
> >>There is more to a book than every word perfect. There are things such
as
> >>pagination being messed up by a word processor perhaps not formatted to
> >>handle the way the book is,
> >>an overzealous individual stripping page numbers or protection thereof,
> >>and all the rest.
> >>Yes, the BookShare stripper is overzealous also, as is any automated
tool;
> >>but the truth is that we, as validators, too can cause problems
> >>(unintentionally, of course)
> >>as can other individuals in the whole process.
> >>I am a validator too so, in my comments, I am criticizing myself as much
> >>as anyone.
> >>And as this is a continual learning process, I am merely suggesting that
> >>we can learn from what happens to books and should occasionally study
our
> >>work, as it appears in the collection, to see if it comes
> >>out in the form we expected.
> >>Usually, all is fine; but there are the occasions when the end result is
> >>more than disappointing.
> >>
> >>My second point, Tracy, is that a lot of books need little or no work as
> >>the submitter has gone through great pains in preparation.
> >>Respect that, I say, and treat those as straightforward validations
noting
> >>any comments left as what may need to be done.
> >>Many submitters too take great pride in their work and feel let down
when
> >>that
> >>book they spent extra hours to get it just right has it run through a
word
> >>processing program that reformats every page so that the original
benefits
> >>are negated.
> >>
> >>
> >>why, when I scan, should I spend many extra hours getting things "right"
> >>(as I see it) if, in the end, it is for naught!
> >>And I have had other submitters privately lament what has happened to
> >>their work -- and it goes beyond the stripper -- as an apparent result
of
> >>something going amiss (possibly even unknown to the validator)
> >>as part of the process.
> >>
> >>If my work as a careful submitter means nothing, perhaps I should begin
> >>submitting raw scans of books done in an hour rather than spending days
> >>getting it ready!
> >>
> >>I am criticizing no one in particular! My msg is mainly directed at new
> >>validators to be careful in what they are doing as they can possibly do
> >>harm as well as much good -- and likely they will do more of the latter
> >>and none of the former.
> >>Also, if you feel offended as a validator, how do you believe submitters
> >>who get sniped at on this list, if they learn of it directly or
> >>indirectly, react.
> >>They probably feel unappreciated too.
> >>
> >>My comments are meant as general constructive ones much as and in the
same
> >>spirit as Elizabeth has recently offered hers.
> >>She has given me plenty of food for thought, and that is what we all
need
> >>as we try to improve both the art of submitting or validating.
> >>
> >>And if I haven't publicly already said this, Thanks, Elizabeth, for
> >>addressing the issues have. Most of the time I agree with you,
sometimes
> >>I don't; but I always appreciate your directness and candor and honesty
> >>and know you don't offer them with negativity but in the hopeful spirit
> >>that we can learn and improve.
> >>And what I offer is in the same vein.
> >>
> >> Mike
> >>
> >>
> >> To unsubscribe from this list send a blank Email to
> >>bksvol-discuss-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >>put the word 'unsubscribe' by itself in the subject line. To get a list
> >>of available commands, put the word 'help' by itself in the subject
line.
> >
> > To unsubscribe from this list send a blank Email to
> > bksvol-discuss-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > put the word 'unsubscribe' by itself in the subject line. To get a list
> > of available commands, put the word 'help' by itself in the subject
line.
> >
> >
>
>
> To unsubscribe from this list send a blank Email to
> bksvol-discuss-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> put the word 'unsubscribe' by itself in the subject line. To get a list
of available commands, put the word 'help' by itself in the subject line.
>
>
>
To unsubscribe from this list send a blank Email to
bksvol-discuss-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
put the word 'unsubscribe' by itself in the subject line. To get a list of
available commands, put the word 'help' by itself in the subject line.
Other related posts:
