[bksvol-discuss] Re: quality
- From: "Rui Cabral" <rui@xxxxxxxx>
- To: <bksvol-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 27 Aug 2004 23:22:23 -0400
Hi James:
This is not run by bookshare but is maintained by myself..
the address is:
http://members.cox.net/booksharescans
----- Original Message -----
From: James Nuttall
To: bksvol-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Friday, August 27, 2004 10:59 PM
Subject: [bksvol-discuss] Re: quality
Where do I find the booksare scanning page?
Jim Nuttall -- Michigan
Rui Cabral <rui@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
Hi Susan:
Depending on how much of a clean-up job your referring too, that book
probably should be rescanned instead of cleaned up. It will take less time
and be more accurate.
Again thats where lists such as the bookshare scanning page come in handy.
(I feel like am running an ad campaign for my site)
In that case,
"I'm Rui Cabral and I approve of this message!!"
----- Original Message -----
From: "Susan Lumpkin"
To:
Sent: Friday, August 27, 2004 7:28 PM
Subject: [bksvol-discuss] Re: quality
> Rui,
>
> It may mean I submit less books to Bookshare but I'd rather they are
readable!
>
> Have several questions - am unsure as to whom they should be addressed
but I'll ask them anyway. Let's say I download a book from Bookshare which
has been accepted. Besides rescanning it, which I would prefer to leave to
someone else, if I find errors (it may be rated good or fair), and wish to
correct them, is there a way the book can be resubmitted again? If so, what
would the procedure be? Thanks in advance and hope this makes sense.
>
> Have a great weekend everyone and happy reading, scanning, validating or
whatever else you may be doing!
>
> SL
>
> -----Original Message-----
> .From: "Rui Cabral"
> .Sent: 8/27/04 5:47:39 PM
> .To: "bksvol-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx"
> .Subject: [bksvol-discuss] Re: quality
> .
> .Hi Susan:
> .Don't worry, you and David aren't alone. There are many of us here who
want
> .the collection to be of high quality.
> .
> .
> .
> .
> .----- Original Message -----
> .From: "Susan Lumpkin"
> .To:
> .Sent: Friday, August 27, 2004 6:43 PM
> .Subject: [bksvol-discuss] Re: When to Reject!!
> .
> .
> .> David, I do the same and it's nice to know someone else does as well.
Have
> .a good weekend.
> .>
> .> -----Original Message-----
> .> .From: "David"
> .> .Sent: 8/27/04 3:35:20 PM
> .> .To: "bksvol-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx"
> .> .Subject: [bksvol-discuss] Re: When to Reject!!
> .> .
> .> .I guess I am a little insane. I actually use a spell checker on the
books
> .> .which I am validating and do my best to bring them up to excellent
> .quality.
> .> .
> .> .David
> .> .
> .> .
> .> .-----Original Message-----
> .> .From: bksvol-discuss-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> .> .[mailto:bksvol-discuss-bounce@freelist s.org] On Behalf Of Mike
Pietruk
> .> .Sent: Friday, August 27, 2004 11:53 AM
> .> .To: bksvol-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> .> .Subject: [bksvol-discuss] When to Reject!!
> .> .
> .> .
> .> .I am now validating a novel on which I have to decide whether the text
is
> .> .readable enough or not. The book is all there, I can follow the
story,
> .> .but there are a lot of words scrambled and missing. Where does one
draw
> .> .the line between accepting it as a fair book or canning it?
> .> .It has been sitting in the pool for a couple of months with no one
> .> .touching it. The book is scanned by a frequent contributor though
this
> .> .particular book doesn't come up to what has been done by this
individual
> .> .in the past.
> .> .
> .> .I could easily return it to the pool; but this likely would place the
> .book
> .> .in li mbo for who knows how long?
> .> .
> .> .So, how poor does fair text have to be to be bad text?
> .> .
> .> .
> .> .---
> .> .Incoming mail is certified Virus Free.
> .> .Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
> .> .Version: 6.0.744 / Virus Database: 496 - Release Date: 8/24/2004
> .> .
> .> .
> .> .---
> .> .Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
> .> .Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
> .> .Version: 6.0.744 / Virus Database: 496 - Release Date: 8/24/2004
> .> .
> .> .
> .> .
> .>
> .>
> .>
> .
> .
>
>
>
Other related posts:
