[bksvol-discuss] Re: Be mindful
- From: Michael Sestak <mlsestak@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: bksvol-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Sat, 24 Nov 2007 20:08:09 -0800 (PST)
Wow, after reading these two long threads on the subject, I'm exhausted.
I basically agree with Julia. It doesn't matter how the scans get that way, by
careful scanning or by proofreading afterwards, good submissions is what we
want.
But this is a division of labor, scanning and validating. Scanners should do
everything they can to make the character recognition work as well as possible
and check for completeness, make sure the title and copyright pages scanned
well. If they'd like to do a spelling check, and strip headers that can be
removed with find and replace, so much the better.
But it seems to me (and I think these are in the volunteer manual now) these
are mainly functions of the validators.
Of course we can only reach those who read this list with these comments, but
what would be most useful to me is for the submitter to include in the comments
a description of what has been done beyond scanning and word recognition and
whether they know the book has more than typical amounts of special text such
as foreign words or names, technical terms, quotations, picture captions or the
like. Then if I was only in the mood for light fast work, I could take an
excellent scan of a science fiction book I've already read (usually in the deep
dark past), from someone who does at least some spelling check. If I felt like
tackling something more challenging I'd take a nonfiction book that is full of
dates and places that was only skimmed for completness by the submitter.
Misha
----- Original Message ----
From: Julia Kulak <julia.kulak@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: bksvol-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Saturday, November 24, 2007 6:02:24 PM
Subject: [bksvol-discuss] Re: Be mindful
What, I'm confused, what if you get good scans consistently. If you
don't
read the book should it be penalized? The reason why I don't do a lot
of
proofreading is that my books just naturally come out really clean.
They
never seem to need a spell check or anything like that. I do read
through
them to make sure they're not full of junk, kind of check a few pages
for
consistency, I hope I don't get into trouble for confessing this to you
all.
Julia
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jill O'Connell" <jillocon@xxxxxxxxxx>
To: <bksvol-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Saturday, November 24, 2007 5:27 PM
Subject: [bksvol-discuss] Re: Be mindful
> In this case, then I think the submitter should be sure to state in
the
> comments section that the book has not been read; this way a
validator
> will not take the book unless he/she knows that a lot of work may be
> required.
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "solsticesinger" <solsticesinger25@xxxxxxxxx>
> To: <bksvol-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Saturday, November 24, 2007 3:58 PM
> Subject: [bksvol-discuss] Be mindful
>
>
>> Hi, all.
>>
>> I've been reading the thread about using validation resources wisely
with
>> a
>> great deal of interest, and, for the most part, I agree with what
you all
>> have said. If submissions are constantly sloppy, there is a definite
>> problem, and I think that needs to be addressed somehow.
>>
>> However, the assertion that, if we don't have time to read our
books, we
>> shouldn't submit them really disturbed me. We are all busy, and we
all
>> only
>> have so much time in the day. So, if I have the time to scan, and
someone
>> else has the time to proofread, why is that a problem? Why should
someone
>> be
>> told not to bother submitting something because he or she doesn't
have
>> the
>> time to proofread it? If that's the case, I'd better stop
submitting.
>> Lol.
>>
>> Anyway, I'm just asking that we be mindful of each other's strengths
and
>> weaknesses, and try not to devalue what other volunteers bring to
the
>> table.
>>
>> Shannon
>> P.S. The message I'm responding to is found below.
>>
>> I think if a person doesn't have time and cannot read the book while
>> scanning, then they shouldn't submit the books. Sometimes that
works,
>> but I know that Mine would come up with some quirky errors if I
didn't
>> read them, and I've seen them in some others. Please, Sharon, don't
>> take this personally. Others have a different opinion I am sure. But
>> if you really don't have time, then you really shouldn't do it. Of
>> course, the little money off the membership fee makes a difference,
I
>> realize that, but if you don't have time, then scan less and take
care
>> of as much as you can. Of course, the headers are no big deal to my
>> way of thinking, so if that would be the only issue, then I wouldn't
>> take exception. I suspect since you posted this that is the case.
>> Cindy Lou Ray
>>
>> We are wise, not because we are women, but because we seek wisdom.
>>
>>
>> To unsubscribe from this list send a blank Email to
>> bksvol-discuss-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> put the word 'unsubscribe' by itself in the subject line. To get a
list
>> of available commands, put the word 'help' by itself in the subject
line.
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> No virus found in this incoming message.
>> Checked by AVG.
>> Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.16.5/1149 - Release Date:
>> 11/24/2007 10:06 AM
>>
>>
>
> To unsubscribe from this list send a blank Email to
> bksvol-discuss-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> put the word 'unsubscribe' by itself in the subject line. To get a
list
> of available commands, put the word 'help' by itself in the subject
line.
To unsubscribe from this list send a blank Email to
bksvol-discuss-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
put the word 'unsubscribe' by itself in the subject line. To get a
list of available commands, put the word 'help' by itself in the subject
line.
Other related posts:
