[bksvol-discuss] Re: txt page breaks redux

  • From: Guido Corona <guidoc@xxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: bksvol-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Wed, 29 Dec 2004 12:10:21 -0600

Kelly,  my books are not 100% accurate.  If your books are,  that is 
wonderful.
I just do not treat Benetech as a basket case in need of scraps,  but as a 
serious employer serving customers.  I do not understand which part of the 
words "pride of work' some people do not grasp.

Regards,




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




Kelly Ford <Kelly@xxxxxxxxxxxx> 
Sent by: bksvol-discuss-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
12/29/2004 11:16 AM
Please respond to
bksvol-discuss


To
bksvol-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
cc

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






Guido,

What makes your definition of things the correct one?  To say that others 
are on the wrong end of things just because their view of what books are 
acceptable for submission doesn't mean that your view of Bookshare is 
correct.

Where has Bookshare ever stated what the volunteer role is that agrees 
with 
what you outline below?

For me personally anything I scan and can read I submit.  I don't spend a 
great deal of time messing about ensuring it is 100% accurate.  If I was 
able to read it, it is likely others will enjoy access to the text as 
well.  If folks find the quality not to their liking then they can move on 

to a different book or improve the quality.

Personally if I've read the full text of a book before submission I 
validate it myself.  If it was a scan for reading later job I'll submit 
the 
book and then either validate it once read or let someone else do the 
validation.

Who's to say what makes a poor scan.  For me I'm not going to spend 
endless 
time working for perfection to get something back into electronic format 
when in most cases it started that way before it ended on the printed page 

I'm putting back into an electronic format.  The hours I save are devoted 
to communication with the publishing industry about making e-texts more 
directly accessible rather than this stop-gap measure of scanning printed 
books.

Make no mistake I love the ability to scan books and the access to 
information it affords but at some level it is a huge waste of time when 
the books exist in electronic format already.



At 07:31 AM 12/29/2004, you wrote:

>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: