Hello again: That happened to me once as well. Admittedly not for such a long period of time, but hey. It depends entirely why the book is being sent back to begin with. -- Rui (the wanna be Bookshare Engineer) Bookshare.org Unofficial Volunteer Scanning Page http://members.cox.net/booksharescans ----- Original Message ----- From: "siss52" <siss52@xxxxxxx> To: <bksvol-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> Sent: Thursday, December 02, 2004 9:36 PM Subject: [bksvol-discuss] Re: returned to step one page > > Hi Rui, > > This isn't hate mail but I imagine that remark made others besides me laugh. > What about this?? David Talmage has had one validation that has been > bouncing for two months. If you were a Bookshare engineer what would you do > about that? <lol> I can ask because I haven't agreed or disagreed in this > particular discussion. > > Sue Stevens > > All hate mail will bounce. <lol> > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Rui Cabral" <rui@xxxxxxxx> > To: <bksvol-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Sent: Thursday, December 02, 2004 7:54 PM > Subject: [bksvol-discuss] Re: returned to step one page > > > Hi Everyone: > I am about to disagree with all of you. > If I was a bookshare engineer, I would design the system to bounce back the > original submissions not the edited ones on the step 1 page. > I basically take the "all or nothing approach." > if i validate a book, and i screw up (yes it has happened) it should go back > to square 1 to someone else. > Now if i see that it bounced back, I can upload my saved copy and make the > changes that have been requested. > > So I like the current procedure. > > Rui's bookshare golden rule: Always keep a saved copy until a book is in > the collection > > > -- Rui(hate mail can be sent to rui@xxxxxxxx > Bookshare.org Unofficial Volunteer Scanning Page > http://members.cox.net/booksharescans > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Julie Morales > To: bksvol-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx > Sent: Thursday, December 02, 2004 7:30 PM > Subject: [bksvol-discuss] Re: returned to step one page > > > Hi, Marissa. I know this is beyond your control, but would it not be > possible, when a book has to be bounced back, to at least keep the validated > version intact so all the editing that did take place isn't lost? This has > never happened to me, but I know it has to be frustrating for those to whom > it does happen. Take care. > Julie Morales > Email and Windows/MSN Messenger: > inlovewithchrist@xxxxxxxxxxxxx > When God puts a tear in your eye, it is because He wants to put a rainbow > in your heart. > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Marissa Mika > To: bksvol-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx > Sent: Thursday, December 02, 2004 9:42 AM > Subject: [bksvol-discuss] Re: returned to step one page > > > Hi Tiffany, > > > > You are correct. When the books are bounced back to the validation cue, > it is the original copy of the file. I don't particularly like this policy, > but it's essentially beyond my control to change it at present. So you don't > lose your validation work or credit, I suggest keeping a saved copy of the > books you validate on your hard-drive until you get the official approval > notice. > > > > I know it would be ideal if a note could be sent out when a book bounces > back to the approval cue. I'll talk to the engineers and see what we can do. > > > > Best, > > Marissa > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: bksvol-discuss-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx > [mailto:bksvol-discuss-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Tiffany H. Jessen > Sent: Thursday, December 02, 2004 2:26 AM > To: bksvol-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx > Subject: [bksvol-discuss] returned to step one page > > > > Hello. > > On the step one page tonight, I found a few books which have already > been validated and approved, but they say they were bounced back to the step > one page for different reasons, checking page breaks, copyright information, > etc. > > My question is, when it's bounced back to the step one page, is that > copy the original file again, or the already validated once cleaned-up copy? > > I would really hope it to be the second, but they're appearing back in > their original formats, so I'm left to assume the second. > > Tiffany > > > > > >