[bksvol-discuss] Re: Volunteers: how much work is realistic
- From: "Rui Cabral" <rui@xxxxxxxx>
- To: <bksvol-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 10 Sep 2004 23:53:35 -0400
Hi Paula:
I can assure you, almost nobody here reads their validations cover to cover,
unless they were planning to read that book anyway.
I personally have done 15 validations in the past 6 weeks (thats with some
PC problems) and only 1 of those books did I read cover to cover.
I know someone else who has validated around 40 books in around that same
timeframe.
(We would do more but that pesky full time job gets in the way every week)
(smile)
I do this by checking rank spelling which is a kurzweil 1000 feature (i
purchased the product because of bookshare)
If you don't have that available to you, spell-check is good along with
making an effort to make sure the text is complete. (note to submitters,
this is why page numbers are useful)
I'm sure there are other tricks non-k1000 users can share.
As far as guidelines, here is a quote from an e-mail Jesse Fahmstock
(collection development coordinator) sent on 8/13/04 regarding the issue.
1. The book is not already on Bookshare.org, or if
it is, that it is being submitted as a superior
replacement or transcribed Braille copy.
2. The book is not an eBook acquired under
proprietary agreement (e.g. a commercial eBook, a
book from WebBraille, etc.)
3. The copyright name and date are included.
4. The title and author are included somewhere in
the book.
5. The book is not missing multiple pages of core
content (core content does not include tables of
contents, indeces, picture pages, or other front or
back matter and the like).
6. The book is readable.
If a book meets all of these requirements, you may
absolutely accept the book. Indeed, I encourage it.
If the book is missing page numbers, or has running
headers, or the table of contents is jumbled, or the
title page is missing (but the above info is still
available), those are not bases for rejecting the
book.
-- end of Jesse's e-mail
Now Paula, the problem a lot of us have with those guidelines is number's 5
and 6.
Specifically #6, whether a book is readable or not as we all know is a
subjective judgement.
Now, I don't know about you, but when i curl up with a good book, i like to
read my books, not interpret them.
If a book has a lot of errors to the point that your guessing at what words
might mean or whole passages are garbled, missing, etc. These are the
things we are trying to avoid. And yes this might mean we might spend a
little longer with a book, but maybe not. Because if a book is that choppy
like i described, I reject it. I know a better scan can be had for that
book. If you go to:
http://members.cox.net/booksharescans
you will see a website that I built that basically centers on TEXT quality.
We have the ability to make bookshare a true accesspoint for information and
recreational reading in this country.
Why not make it a quality experience equal to a 50,000 Watt radio station
instead of a
static-filled A.M. station fading in and out.
\|*j :
----- Original Message -----
From: "Paula Mack" <pmack1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <bksvol-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Thursday, September 09, 2004 8:28 AM
Subject: [bksvol-discuss] Volunteers: how much work is realistic
> Hi listers,
>
> I have been reading with some dismay the discussion regarding book
validation. I volunteered my time, because I was under the impression that
volunteers were needed. This is evident in the amount of books awaiting
validation. I assumed that the job involved making sure that all title,
author and copyright information were included and that they were accurate.
I assumed that a spellcheck would be necessary to eliminate the OCR errors
that crop up. The guidelines I was sent seemed to indicate this, and in
fact, didn't even suggest spellcheck, although I think that would be
necessary in even the most perfect scan.
>
> However, from this list and the other Bookshare list, I am getting the
feeling that anything less than going over each word and page number with a
fine-tooth comb is not wanted. Now, I can't speak for any one else, but I
am extremely anxious to help out at bookshare. However, when I scan my own
books, I don't expect perfection. When I read Bookshare books, I don't
expect perfection. OCR, can not, at least at this point in time, provide
perfection. If people have the time to go through every character
comprising a book, that's fine. Personally, I have a full-time job, a home,
and a family. I don't have that kind of time, and frankly, if I did, I
don't think I'd want to spend it in this manner. As an avid reader, I'd
rather see more books available, then have less books to choose from and
have them be perfect.
>
> I would like the staff to make some kind of statement regarding this
issue. If this kind of microscopic examination of each book is desired,
then I suspect there may be less people willing to volunteer.
>
> Personally, I still want to volunteer. However, if following the
guidelines as they are, along with spellchecking is not acceptable, then I
would like to know this. I certainly would not want to cause problems by
releasing books that the staff does not deem acceptable. however, if a
microscopic examination of each book is truly what is wanted, I think this
needs to be made clear so that potential volunteers can make an informed
decision.
>
> thanks,
>
> Paula
>
>
Other related posts:
