[bksvol-discuss] Re: renewing books you're validating
- From: Cindy <popularplace@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: bksvol-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Tue, 19 Jul 2005 18:50:44 -0700 (PDT)
Well said, Tracy.
Cindy
--- Tracy Carcione <carcione@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> I want to say that, while 30 days is perfectly
> reasonable for most books,
> that's not always the case. I can think of 3 books
> I have done fairly
> recently that took a month or more, and I wasn't
> "poring over every word".
> They were just very large, and in need of a bit of
> work. Further, they
> were not in such bad shape that they deserved
> rejection, and, had I been
> that silly, most likely no one would have bothered
> to rescan them.
> Quantity is good. Quality is good. In fact, I'm
> all for it. Quickness
> of turn-around is also good, but, if I have to
> choose between quality and
> quickness, I'll take quality every time. And if my
> efforts can make a
> book more readable, without me having to read every
> word, then I'm all for
> it and that's what I do.
> Oh, I left out another thing that can stretch
> time--those bosses of mine!
> They keep giving me work to do! Don't they realize
> that they pay me my
> healthy salary so that I can validate books for
> Bookshare?! And there are
> only so many hours in a day one can spend at a
> computer.
> Tracy
>
>
> On Mon, 18 Jul 2005, Jake Brownell wrote:
>
> > Hi E,
> > While there are possibly some issues that are
> indeed more important than
> > validation time, if we do not attempt to maintain
> a quick turn around
> > through the system, then BookShare loses part of
> its advantage.
> > The initial message suggested a longer
> validation time and in response
> > to that we have moved on to max times of
> validating. I would support such a
> > max time provided that in rare cases for practical
> purposes the time can be
> > extended. I think though the difficulty lies in
> finding a way that will
> > A. not be abused
> > B. not be granted lightly
> > and C. that will not take away from already scarce
> staff resources.
> >
> > I too, have seen books that were renewed and
> renewed to only end up not
> > being validated. I think that those validators who
> poor over every word of a
> > book that is already in great shape is great
> because the scan will be that
> > much better, however, I urge them to remember that
> there are far lesser
> > quality books that are making their way into the
> collection that could
> > really use that type of work.
> >
> > One reason I do not do much validating is that
> without access to Kurzweil
> > 1000's Rank Spelling it is difficult without
> reading a majority of a book to
> > really tell the shape it is in. Hopefully this
> will change in the future and
> > I'll do more than just scan, but I still have a
> couple hundred titles on my
> > list to scan, so I'll still be busy for a while
> yet. *grin*
> >
> > Jake
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "E." <thoth93@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > To: <bksvol-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > Sent: Monday, July 18, 2005 12:22 PM
> > Subject: [bksvol-discuss] Re: renewing books
> you're validating
> >
> >
> >> I agree. Sometimes I quickly validate a book.
> Sometimes it takes longer
> >> than a week. There are worse issues to be
> addressed than keeping a book
> >> out for a few weeks to validate.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> No virus found in this incoming message.
> >> Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
> >> Version: 7.0.323 / Virus Database: 267.9.0/50 -
> Release Date: 7/16/2005
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
>
>
____________________________________________________
Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
Other related posts:
