[bksvol-discuss] Re: ten validations
- From: "Jake Brownell" <jabrown@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: <bksvol-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 18 Jun 2005 04:04:24 -0500
Hey Tony,
I think sometimes in the past when those of us with high standards post
about it on the list, newbies can get confused as to what is required and
what is not. I think Dave was attempting to point out that each person will
have his/her style of validating and that you were describing yours. I know
you said they were suggestions, but again people can easily become confused
and overwelmed if they are new.
Like the following you wrote:
"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."
Referring to some of the procedures you describe as basic is a bit of an
understatement I think to some people. I know some BookShare users that
don't know how to use Find and Replace, so calling that basic seems a bit of
a stretch.
I wouldn't call flying through the books someone who just checks for the
basics. Validation as evident by the amount of credit it is worth is
supposed to be an easy task and shouldn't require any of the work you
describe.
Now having said all that, I would have to agree with a lot of what you said
in your message. I hold myself to quite high standards, although I hate
spell checkers and won't touch the damn things unless its a school paper.
Hopefully I have made a little sense to why perhaps Dave's reminder was
appropriate.
Best,
Jake
----- Original Message -----
From: "Tony Baechler" <tony@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <bksvol-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Saturday, June 18, 2005 3:45 AM
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/
>
>
>
>
> --
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
> Version: 7.0.323 / Virus Database: 267.7.8/22 - Release Date: 6/17/2005
>
>
Other related posts: