[bksvol-discuss] Re: text quality
- From: "Rui Cabral" <rui@xxxxxxxx>
- To: <bksvol-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 10 Aug 2004 20:37:03 -0400
Ken:
If you new what lengths some of us go to "include" books and not exclude,
you would be amazed.
I personally want as many books on bookshare as possible. but that is books
that i can read and not have to interpret or guess at.
Ah, this gives me an idea. remember my unofficial volunteer website? What if
i had a list of books on there that people rejected. Similar to the
wishlist, next time someone wanted to scan something and didn't know what
they could check the list.
What do people think.
please e-mail: booksharescans@xxxxxxx with your thoughts.
That way every book that was meant to be on bookshare, gets on bookshare but
in a quality form.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Kenneth A. Cross" <crossk@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <bksvol-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Tuesday, August 10, 2004 7:30 PM
Subject: [bksvol-discuss] Re: 550 books in the download queue
> Quite true, Mary, but you aren't deciding just for you. You are also
> deciding for us. My only point is that the impulse should be to include,
> not exclude, to judge not on form but on meaning and content. A book can
> always be recalled; it can't necessarily be reclaimed. My University
> library probably has one-hundred thousand books. Nation-wide, we have no
> where near that. My only point, again, is that the tendency should be to
> include.
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Mary Otten" <maryotten@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: <bksvol-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Tuesday, August 10, 2004 6:58 PM
> Subject: [bksvol-discuss] Re: 550 books in the download queue
>
>
> > Ken,
> > I think there is a middle ground between some unattainable goal of
> perfection on one hand, and letting easily fixed errors go on the other,
on
> the grounds that most of us have been without access to books for much
> > of our lives. I, for one, will not read a sloppy book with all kinds of
> junk in it, which detracts from my ability to follow what the author is
> saying. Occasional errors are one thing. Messed up tables are still a fact
> of life in
> > many instances. But there is simply no reason to submit a book with
blocks
> of junk that was the result of a poorly recognized graph, chart, picture,
> diagram or other object that does not ocr well or at all. If the book is
> > worth submitting, its worth taking the time to get rid of the stuff that
> can be found by using the tools that the modern ocr progarms put at our
> disposal.
> > Mary
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
Other related posts:
