[bksvol-discuss] Re: An alternative to validating fair quality submissions

  • From: Monica Willyard <rhyami@xxxxxxxxx>
  • To: bksvol-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2008 18:54:30 -0500

Donna, I'm sure you have gotten a lot of replies to your note here. I have to speak up and agree with you wholeheartedly. Especially in the area of fiction paperbacks, there is no good reason that a validater should have to spend hours retyping or even rescanning pages to make a fair scan legible. I don't do it anymore, and I reject books where that kind of work is necessary. Submitters and validaters are supposed to work as a team. If either person does sloppy work, the burden falls on the other person to pick up the slack unless both are willing to put a sloppy scan up on Bookshare. If I'm going to spend hours working on a book and have to buy the book just to figure out what the scannos are, I'd rather reject the fair copy and spend the time doing a fresh, and excellent, scan. It takes less time to rescan a book than it does to type in long passages and fix thousands of errors. I can scan an average paperback in 45 minutes and usually spend an hour or two on clean up. So, if a fiction paperback book rated fair is going to take more than 3 hours for me to fix, it gets rejected. I buy or borrow a copy and scan it cleanly, and I think my time is best used this way.

Monica Willyard

Donna Smith wrote:

Hi all.

I apologize in advance if this suggestion ruffles feathers, but it is made in the spirit of getting excellent quality books into the collection.

I am one of the volunteers who believes that "validating" a book shouldn't involve rewriting it because the scan is poor.

Other related posts: