[bksvol-discuss] Re: 550 books in the download queue
- From: "Kenneth A. Cross" <crossk@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <bksvol-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 10 Aug 2004 19:30:47 -0400
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:
