[bksvol-discuss] Re: validating
- From: "Shelley L. Rhodes" <juddysbuddy@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <bksvol-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2005 21:44:36 -0400
Ah, my experience with publishers is they watch those electronic files like
hawks, and even when you prove you have a disability, and that you bought a
print copy of the book sometimes they still don't want to part with a copy.
Shelley L. Rhodes and Judson, guiding golden
juddysbuddy@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Guide Dogs For the Blind Inc.
Graduate Advisory Council
www.guidedogs.com
The vision must be followed by the venture. It is not enough to
stare up the steps - we must step up the stairs.
-- Vance Havner
----- Original Message -----
From: "Hope Hein" <hmhein@xxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <bksvol-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Wednesday, July 27, 2005 5:49 AM
Subject: [bksvol-discuss] Re: validating
Hi Julie!
This is just a thought. NLS has people that record books for the blind as
well as Recordings for the Blind. Would it be possible to get more sighted
volunteers to scan books. Maybe some of the people who read for NLS? Or,
could Book Share staff contact the publishing houses and have them send the
computer files of the books to Book Share? It seems like Book Share should
be able to get these books directly from the publishers since we have the
exception and are allowed to put books in a readable format. This suggestion
may not work for books published in the past as I don't know how long
publishers keep the books on the computer. However, now a days it seems like
this would be a good suggestion.
This message may not have been written as well as I wanted it to be. I hope
you get the just of it.
Smile
Hope
----- Original Message -----
From: "Julie Morales" <inlovewithchrist@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <bksvol-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Tuesday, July 26, 2005 7:52 PM
Subject: [bksvol-discuss] Re: validating
> Hi, Hope. I agree with you. Unfortunately, not all submitters do that,
> which
> is why the validator's job is so important. The guidelines for
> submissions,
> if made too strict, will do more harm than good, I think, at least in some
> cases, by discouraging people from submitting at all and limiting what
> ends
> up in the collection, but I do agree with you. I'm not saying submitters
> shouldn't validate their scans before putting them up on the site. If
> someone does grab a book and sees that it's in good condition, the
> validation process does go more quickly, I think, than it would if many
> corrections were necessary or if something of importance wasn't clear.
> Take
> care.
> Julie Morales
> inlovewithchrist@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Windows/MSN Messenger (but not email):
> mercy0421@xxxxxxxxxxx
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Hope Hein" <hmhein@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: <bksvol-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Tuesday, July 26, 2005 3:23 AM
> Subject: [bksvol-discuss] Re: validating
>
>
> Hi Julie!
> Maybe everyone should validate his/her book when it is scanned before
> submitting it without actually validating it on book share. All I am
> trying
> to say is that books should be read and errors corrected by the submitter
> before the books are submitted. When the validate tries to validate he/she
> may not have access to the original book. I hate to see any book rejected.
> The scanning process is tedious and a little extra effort on the part of
> the
> scanner to proofread his/her work would save a lot of time and frustration
> for the validate.
> Thanks
> LOL
> Hope
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Julie Morales" <inlovewithchrist@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: <bksvol-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Tuesday, July 26, 2005 3:27 AM
> Subject: [bksvol-discuss] Re: validating
>
>
>> Hi, Joanie. But how would one know that the submitter did pay that much
>> attention to detail? How would one know that the submitter did read the
>> book
>> entirely through? All of the Janette Oke books I've been submitting have
>> been read completely through. They are of excellent quality. Kurzweil's
>> ranked spelling proves that. Most of them are at least 99.8 percent
>> accurate
>> or better. Is that good? Certainly, but don't take my word for it.
>> *smile*
>> I'm not saying anyone would do this, but it's possible that someone could
>> say they read the book completely through in hopes of speeding up the
>> process when, maybe, in fact, they did not. I think having another person
>> validate is a good form of checks and balances and support it. I think
>> it's
>> a necessary part of making sure Bookshare stays true to what it was meant
>> to
>> be, and we do have copyright to think about. What if a submitter did
>> validate their own submission and something in that area was missing?
>> Those
>> are just my thoughts, anyway. Take care.
>> Julie Morales
>> inlovewithchrist@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> Windows/MSN Messenger (but not email):
>> mercy0421@xxxxxxxxxxx
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "CJ Vining" <Vining@xxxxxxxxxx>
>> To: <bksvol-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> Sent: Monday, July 25, 2005 10:01 PM
>> Subject: [bksvol-discuss] Re: validating
>>
>>
>> That's one opinion I don't happen to agree with. If the book scanned
>> poorly,
>> then yes, a second person looking at the file may be a good idea, but if
>> it's a near excellent scan to begin with, and the book is being read
>> cover
>> to cover anyway by the submitter, I don't see why that person's
>> validation
>> is any less valuable than someone else's. The book is still being read
>> with
>> the same attention to detail as one would give to a book one did not
>> scan.
>>
>> Joanie
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Rui" <goldWave@xxxxxxx>
>> To: <bksvol-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> Sent: Monday, July 25, 2005 8:51 PM
>> Subject: [bksvol-discuss] Re: validating
>>
>>
>>> (this is a repost of a message i wrote on 6/18/04)
>>>
>>> Hi Everyone:
>>>
>>> I am very glad that all the text quality people have come out of the
>>> shadows.
>>> There is only one more thing I would ask.
>>> Please do not self-validate.
>>> If your book has been sitting on the mountain of step 1 books for a
>>> while,
>>> (2 weeks of more) perhaps you could point that book out to the list.
>>> I truly feel it is very worthwhile to have a second pair of eyes (pardon
>> the
>>> pun) look at the book.
>>> That's why writers don't proofread their own books, a second person is
>> lible
>>> to catch more.
>>>
>>> I hope my text quality bretheron share my views on this.
>>>
>>> -- Rui
>>>
>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>> From: "Hope Hein" <hmhein@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>>> To: <bksvol-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>> Sent: Monday, July 25, 2005 11:25 PM
>>> Subject: [bksvol-discuss] validating
>>>
>>>
>>> >I am trying to validate This Side of HEAVEN. I down loaded it in to my
>>> >documents, then unzipped it, then brought it up in word. Lastly I
>>> >changed
>>> >the file name so it could be edited. I found many errors as well as
>> missing
>>> >words or even possibly sentences. I am correcting the errors and trying
>> to
>>> >figure out what is supposed to be written to complete missing
>>> >sentences.
>> It
>>> >is so garbled in some spots that I am going to check it out of the
>> library
>>> >and try a rescan. The reason I am saying all of this is two fold.
>> Firstly,
>>> >could my computer be doing something I.a. taking out words or not
>>> >showing
>>> >them to me? Secondly, could the people who scan the books also validate
>>> >them since they have the print copies? This is just a suggestion. I
>>> >know
>>> >that I am knew and do not know much about scanning and validating. You
>> all
>>> >are doing a wonderful job and it is a privilege to read the books. I
>>> >just
>>> >wonder if the books could be scanned and validated by the same person
>>> >it
>>> >would save time and frustration. I have tried to validate four books
>>> >and
>>> >only one has made it so far.
>>> >
>>> > I would be grateful for any suggestions if anyone thinks my computer
>>> > may
>>> > be causing some of the missing lines. Also, please give me feedback on
>>> > what you think of the same person scanning and validating.
>>> > Thank you
>>> > I love Book Share and truly want to make it the best it can be.
>>> > Hope
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
--
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.338 / Virus Database: 267.9.5/58 - Release Date: 7/25/2005
Other related posts:
