Hello. Umm, there is a rather obvious contradiction here. Yes, thanks for
pointing out how my message is negative. That is what I was asking Dave to
do. I think most of it has to do with using proper grammar and not being
negative, but that is appreciated. I will try to keep this in
mind. However, (well, there I go again being negative) you said that I did
not congratulate her on her work and I was being critical. The first thing
I said was that it was good for her. How in the world am I not
congratulating her? I start right off by saying "Hi. That's good for
you!" I really have no idea how this is negative or anything else. I was
appreciating her effort and congratulating her. I responded to the rest of
your points in a message to Jake so I won't repeat them here.
At 09:01 AM 6/18/2005 -0500, you wrote:
Tony,
Sorry, but I think Dave was correct in pointing out that your comments were your own personal methodology and not required by Bookshare.
The words or phrases you need to leave out of your messages are negative words like:
However But please do Again I don't mean to be critical, but I hope you do not
Your message also came across negative because Kasondra had mentioned in her message that she had worked hard on her ten validations, while your message tells her what she should be doing when she validates without giving any indication that you had even seen her work and because your advice was unsolicited.
Before you decide my message was not called for and that I didn't need to correct you, reread your rebuttal to Dave. You'll note that it includes the following. "Please point out how I was unclear that I was only trying to make a few suggestions."
Gerald
P.S. Kasondra, since I haven't done it yet, I would like to congratulate you on your ten validations.
Tony's original message in its entirety.
Hi. That's good for you! That means $5 off your next renewal, and that always helps. However, I would like to suggest something. I don't mean to dampen your spirits or anything, but please do a thorough spell check to remove scanning errors. Some of them can be easily fixed with a search and replace, like the split words, but often the only way to find scanning errors is with a full reading through and using a spell checker. In this regard, I have a custom dictionary for Word that I have developed. It has both American and British spellings and has greatly helped me lately in validating. Here are a couple examples of what I mean:
"Erie Stanley Gardner" The above should be Erle, but the scanner missed it.
1 think 1 should. The "1" should be "I." This is somewhat common.
So, whc did it? The "whc" should be "who." This isn't quite so common but still happens.
The other thing to watch for is random punctuation marks which don't really belong. The way I'm handling them is to replace them with "z" so they show up as being spelled wrong. Examples are |, *, \, and ^. You have to be careful though since sometimes they are supposed to be there. Other things to watch for are "rn" instead of "m." One thing that bugs me is when someone is talking about, for example, "the modem way." This should obviously be modern. Another thing is when sites get mangled, like www.startrek.corn. Since corn is a real word, it's hard for spell checkers to find it. It's a little funny though in science fiction when people pick up the corn unit.
Again, I don't mean to be critical and I am not saying that you don't do these things already, but I hope you don't just fly through the books and not check for some of these basic things. I personally only read books which interest me except for kids books. For basic children's books and some really dry textbooks, I always read them all the way through. Even with the children's books I read them because they are short. I now always check for and remove split words. An easy way to do this is to replace both "^-" and "-^l" in Word with nothing. The first is an optional hyphen, the second is a dash followed by a newline. My custom dictionary is available for anyone who wants it, just ask and I'll send you a zip file.
-----Original Message----- From: bksvol-discuss-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:bksvol-discuss-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of Tony Baechler Sent: Saturday, June 18, 2005 3:45 AM To: bksvol-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx Subject: [bksvol-discuss] Re: ten validations
Hello Dave. I made it clear at least twice in my message that those were only suggestions. I know from experience that some things often get overlooked. I was not trying to pick on anyone. Therefore, I don't really appreciate you pointing out the obvious or feeling as though you needed to correct me. I was only trying to be helpful as I mentioned. Since you mentioned it, the only major requirement, apart from valid copyright, title and author information is that the book is complete. Often one can guess by looking at the last page whether it is complete or not, but not always unless you actually read enough of it to get the context. I suppose I should have mentioned that before, but I really thought it would be enough mentioning twice at least that I was only making suggestions. I normally don't include my original message, but Dave included it so I'm leaving it here. Please point out how I was unclear that I was only trying to make a few suggestions.
At 01:03 PM 6/15/2005 -0400, you wrote:
>I feel obliged to point out to any of the newer validaters that this is >Tony's personal methodology, and not a requirement of Bookshare. I didn't >want to see anyone who is just getting into validating become overwhelmed >by the prospect and just call it quits. The more you validate, the better >you will get, the easier it will become, and the higher you will set the >standard for your own personal efforts. > >Dave > >At 12:31 AM 6/15/2005, you wrote: >>Hi. That's good for you! That means $5 off your next renewal, and that >>always helps. However, I would like to suggest something. I don't mean >>to dampen your spirits or anything, but please do a thorough spell check >>to remove scanning errors. Some of them can be easily fixed with a >>search and replace, like the split words, but often the only way to find >>scanning errors is with a full reading through and using a spell >>checker. In this regard, I have a custom dictionary for Word that I have >>developed. It has both American and British spellings and has greatly >>helped me lately in validating. Here are a couple examples of what I mean: > >
Tony Baechler Maintainer, goldenaudio.net (TM) online archives http://goldenaudio.net/
Tony Baechler Maintainer, goldenaudio.net (TM) online archives http://goldenaudio.net/
