[bksvol-discuss] Re: scanners' feelings
- From: "Julie Morales" <mercy421@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <bksvol-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 31 Dec 2005 04:23:21 -0500
Do you still have the originals? You could always resubmit them if you felt
that strongly about it, but I don't blame you. If they truly were better, it
would be a different story, I know. Take care.
Julie Morales
Children are fragile. Handle with prayer. --Unknown
----- Original Message -----
From: "Tiffany H. Jessen" <tjessen@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <bksvol-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Saturday, December 31, 2005 4:13 AM
Subject: [bksvol-discuss] Re: scanners' feelings
Yes, I get the letter of acceptance, then some time later, (sometimes even
months later), I get a notice that my copy has been replaced by a superior
quality. And yes, I use Kurzweil to rank the quality. It's not always a big
difference, but in all of the cases so far they have been decreases in
quality. After looking over the books more closely I suppose they could
still be considered excellent shape, but they're more borderline where as
mine were nearly perfect. Oh well...
----- Original Message -----
From: "Silvara" <silvara@xxxxxxx>
To: <bksvol-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Friday, December 30, 2005 10:15 PM
Subject: [bksvol-discuss] Re: scanners' feelings
> Tiffany:
>
> Do you actually receive an email telling you that your book has been
> replaced?
> That can be very frustrating especially if you feel that the book has been
> down graded, not improved.
>
> K1000 is an excellent tool for comparing book quality. When you look at
> the list of mispelling you get to see what type of errors it has.
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Tiffany H. Jessen" <tjessen@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: <bksvol-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Friday, December 30, 2005 10:18 AM
> Subject: [bksvol-discuss] Re: scanners' feelings
>
>
>> Oh no, I don't worry about a validater ranking my book as good if I think
>> it is excellent. My concern is when I have a book approved in excellent,
>> and then X amount of time later someone else scans that same book and has
>> it approved as an excellent quality, when in fact it is lower than what I
>> did. I wouldn't mind my book being replaced if it were in fact a superior
>> quality, the objection is when it goes the other way around.
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Mike Pietruk" <pietruk@xxxxxxxxx>
>> To: <bksvol-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> Sent: Friday, December 30, 2005 6:58 AM
>> Subject: [bksvol-discuss] Re: scanners' feelings
>>
>>
>>> Tiff and Shelley
>>>
>>> Perhaps it is age, I'm in my mid 50s, but I don't leg my ego
>>> into the process worry8ing whether someone labels my excellent scan as
>>> good, et al. At first, I thought it meant something; but as a validator
>>> myself, I realize that it's generally an arbitrary decision made by
>>> another human being, and nothing more.
>>> So if validator takes my excellent submission and believes it only to be
>>> good, what does it matter in the grand schemes of things?
>>>
>>> As for Lissi's questions, Julie pretty much conveys my feelings.
>>> And if a book sits too long on Step 1, as Cindy notes, I always have the
>>> option of self-validating which I did on a couple of Christmas books so
>>> that they would make it into the collection for the Christmas reading
>>> season.
>>>
>>> As a validator myself, I get to know the work styles of submitters and
>>> tend to validate those who do the work upfront so to speak.
>>> So I quickly know what will need to be done, if anything, based on my
>>> experience with their work as well as comments they supply.
>>> I attempt for quick turn arounds and attempt to avoid knitpicking as,
>>> with
>>> over 600 books on Step 1, time is best spent on titles that frankly
>>> don't
>>> need much handholding.
>>> I would only spend that time on Step 1 books that I believed were
>>> special
>>> to the collection amd might not be replacible.
>>> Spending hours upon hours validating something, in most instances, makes
>>> little sense as rescanning it would be faster.
>>> Keep in mind that 5 times the credits are given for submissions vs
>>> validations which indicates where the effort ought to be placed in a
>>> priority scheme.
>>>
>>> Just some rambling thoughts which I doubt hold much significance. To
>>> sum
>>> up, a topnotch submission requires little from the validator beyond spot
>>> checking and verification. And once one learns the work habits and
>>> tendecies of those they validate, the process becomes even more
>>> streamlined.
>>>
>>>
>>> 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.
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> No virus found in this incoming message.
>> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
>> Version: 7.1.371 / Virus Database: 267.14.9/217 - Release Date:
>> 12/30/2005
>>
>>
>
>
>
> --
> No virus found in this outgoing message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.1.371 / Virus Database: 267.14.9/217 - Release Date: 12/30/2005
>
> 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:
