[bksvol-discuss] Re: txt page breaks redux

  • From: Guido Corona <guidoc@xxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: bksvol-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Wed, 29 Dec 2004 09:31:31 -0600

Sorry Mike,  but rather, some submitters appear to be on the incorrectly 
assuming end of things.
If I scan for my own enjoyment,  I simply scan,  then read.  I do not 
truly care if I have removed all errors.  If I submit a book to Bookshare, 
 I am performing   a job for an entity with "PAYING CUSTOMERS".  The fact 
I am not a salaried employee but I am simply awarded some brownie points 
by a finnicky system that assigns those points to some else half of the 
time,  is totally and utterly immaterial.
For all intents and purposes I am working for Bookshare,  I am not handing 
 some desperados my scraps of e-food.
I have scanned plenty of books that I judged were not good enough to 
warrant submission:  I have never submitted those copies,  nor will I in 
the future.  In many cases,  as I got better and better recognition 
engines,  I scanned again, and again.  Some of these rescans improved  to 
the point where I decided to submit them,  in other cases they are still 
in my ""Hall Of Shame."


If a submitter does not care if their labour is accepted or rejected,  I 
feel even more comfortable nuking their flawed submissions.  I am once 
again repeating, working for Bookshare customers. 
In my rejections,  I always add an informative note about the technical 
reason for rejection and most often what the submitter needs to do to 
avoid future problems. It is up to the submitter to request this info from 
the administrator.  Quite Frankly Mike,  there are fortunately few 
volunteers who systematically submit poor jobs,  they themselves know who 
they are and should have gotten the message. At least in one particular 
case one of these folks has recently decided to become an anonymous 
submitter.  Unfortunately the unique glib and uninformative nature of his 
short synopses just gives him away,  even without downloading the 
submission for analysis and confirmation.


And no,  I am sorry,  a poor quality book is not at all better than no 
book at all,  it is only a poor book,  and it leaves a nasty taste in my 
mouth.

Regards,
 
Guido Dante Corona
IBM Accessibility Center,  Austin Tx.
Research Division,
Phone:  512. 838. 9735.
Email: guidoc@xxxxxxxxxxx
Web:  http://www.ibm.com/able




Mike Pietruk <pietruk@xxxxxxxxx> 
Sent by: bksvol-discuss-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
12/29/2004 03:47 AM
Please respond to
bksvol-discuss


To
bksvol-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
cc

Subject
[bksvol-discuss] Re: txt page breaks redux






Guido

You are also assuming, and I would suggest erroneously, that the submitter 

cares in all cases whether their books is accepted or rejected.
Some folks submit their scans as a courtesy to allow others the benefit of 

what they've done for themselves.
Hence, by just rejected their work, you convey no msg other than BookShare 

doesn't want it.
Hence, you are not going to improve their efforts as their initial 
intention wasn't a BookShare submission but to read it for themselves.
If they consider the book readable for themselves, that is all that 
matters to them in this instance.

While I wholeheartedly agree that better quality books are desirable over 
worse scanned ones, I also recognize the philosophy upon which BookShare 
is based.
I also recognize that something else is at play:  BookShare, due to its 
success and growth, is perhaps bursting at its ability to process received 

submissions and needs, therefore, to figure out a means of making the 
workload managable.
While I do personally nuke books that are of such poor quality making 
reading difficult or impossible, I also accept the notion that I also 
rather have a poorer quality book than none at all.
And in many cases, nuking a book won't be having it rescanned but gone 
forever.




Other related posts: