[bksvol-discuss] Re: Download Stats
- From: Cindy <popularplace@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: bksvol-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Mon, 23 May 2005 10:16:49 -0700 (PDT)
Thanks, Sue. I'll accept double what I'm getting now
(0 since I'm not a member--grin). But I do worry that
my descriptions are perhaps too detailed and/or not
clear enough. I suppose the reader can delete or
ignore whatever he or she wants).
Cindy
--- siss52 <siss52@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> It seems that Cindy should get paid more for doing
> all those Caldecott
> descriptions and others she has done... In some
> cases the descriptions MAKE
> the books.
>
> Sue S.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Charlene" <caota@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: <bksvol-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Monday, May 23, 2005 2:21 AM
> Subject: [bksvol-discuss] Re: Download Stats
>
>
> You're probably right about figuring out how to
> determine those sorts of
> things. You've got a good idea, though, about
> giving validators more
> credit when they take time to clean up some of the
> books that are poorly
> scanned.
>
> Charlene
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: bksvol-discuss-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:bksvol-discuss-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On
> Behalf Of Julie Morales
> Sent: Sunday, May 22, 2005 7:10 PM
> To: bksvol-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: [bksvol-discuss] Re: Download Stats
>
>
> Hi, Charlene. This is a good idea in theory, but I'd
> be interested to
> know
> how they'd work it out. No matter how they do it,
> there are going to be
> people who don't believe they get enough credit for
> what they do. I
> think
> the least they could do is, if a validator takes a
> poorly-scanned book
> off
> the Downloads page and makes it into a good-quality
> book, they
> definitely
> should get more than 50 cents. I don't think many,
> if any, people would
> argue that, but I think it would be hard to decide:
> Did a submitter
> really
> spend a lot of time cleaning up a book before they
> submitted it, or did
> it
> just scan well? Take care.
> Julie Morales
> inlovewithchrist@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Windows/MSN Messenger (but not email):
> mercy0421@xxxxxxxxxxx
> Skype: mercy0421
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Charlene" <caota@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: <bksvol-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Sunday, May 22, 2005 5:02 PM
> Subject: [bksvol-discuss] Re: Download Stats
>
>
> For whatever it's worth, when I was at the NFB
> convention last summer
> and saw Jim Frukterman (big appologies for
> misspelling the last name!!!)
> I asked him if it would be possible to consider
> increasing the amount of
> credit given to people who make the effort to clean
> up their books
> before sobmitting them. I've spent heaven knows how
> many hours cleaning
> up books, and if anyone's scanned cookbooks, you
> know the time involved!
> (smile!) It's all about what a person's motivation
> is. Jim said this
> was at least something to thik about. And I haven't
> seen or heard
> anything regarding different levels of credit since.
>
> Charlene
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: bksvol-discuss-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:bksvol-discuss-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On
> Behalf Of Cindy
> Sent: Sunday, May 22, 2005 10:09 AM
> To: bksvol-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: [bksvol-discuss] Re: Download Stats
>
>
> But then, Mike, perhaps they (i,e, those people who
> scan for themselves and don't fix them before
> submission) shouldn't submit them. They get $2.50
> credit toward their membership, and the work, or
> lack
> of it they do, isn't worth it --whereas if anyone
> bothers to validate those books and fix them, that
> person only gets 50 cents credit and does much more
> work. I don't know whether, if a person's
> submission
> is rejected, that person still gets the credit for
> the submission or
> not. In some cases, the book may not be rejected for
> quite some time, so
> I suspect it would be hard to take away the credit.
> It seems to me that if a person is scanning
> books
> for his/her own pleasure reading and doesn't care
> about making it at least minimally readable for
> other
> people he/she shouldn't submit the book.
>
> Cindy
>
> > (2) Many people scan books for themselves for
> their
> > own reading as a
> > primary intent. Submitting it to BookShare is a
> > secondary intent.
> > Hence, the person doesn't wish to devote
> > extra time or effort in preparing the book
> > and BookShare receives it "as is."
> ...
> >
> > Both are valid approaches to scanning and
> > sub hence, we
> > shouldn't fault submitters for material submitted
> > prepared for their own
> > use that they wish to share (hence the name
> > BookShare).
> >...
> > And with literally hundreds of romance novels
> > published monthly, and if
> > someone wanted to read many of them for
> themselves,
> > I can understand
> > why they'd take the fast unchecked approach to
> > scanning them for
> > themselves.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Mail
> Stay connected, organized, and protected. Take the
> tour:
> http://tour.mail.yahoo.com/mailtour.html
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Yahoo! Mail
Stay connected, organized, and protected. Take the tour:
http://tour.mail.yahoo.com/mailtour.html
Other related posts:
