[bksvol-discuss] Re: txt page breaks redux

  • From: "bob tweedy" <rtweedy2@xxxxxxx>
  • To: <bksvol-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Wed, 29 Dec 2004 12:16:56 -0600

Don't forgot too that a poor book is a waste of time and it counts toward your 
100 a month which you can increase. At least a customer would be able to 
download and have confidence knowing the book is going to be in good shape. I 
know we want 100% but knowing the electronics we are working with, we are doing 
good. When I first joined bookshare, the books for the most part were good but 
now they are getting better. 
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Guido Corona 
  To: bksvol-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx 
  Sent: Wednesday, December 29, 2004 9:31 AM
  Subject: [bksvol-discuss] Re: txt page breaks redux



  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: