[bksvol-discuss] Re: Fair rating
- From: "Rui Cabral" <rui@xxxxxxxx>
- To: <bksvol-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 13 Aug 2004 17:54:41 -0400
Even with yesterdays software, you can do way better then 95%.
(this is part of the reason i don't plunk down $50 for a membership)
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jesse Fahnestock" <Jesse.F@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <bksvol-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Friday, August 13, 2004 4:58 PM
Subject: [bksvol-discuss] Re: Fair rating
> Mary, as we know, Bookshare.org was designed with the capacity to accept
books scanned on yesterday's software, too ... and did quite a bit of that
in its early days (grin).
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: bksvol-discuss-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:bksvol-discuss-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of Mary Otten
> Sent: den 13 augusti 2004 19:56
> To: bksvol-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: [bksvol-discuss] Re: Fair rating
>
>
> Cindy,
> Yes, valid but inaccurate words will be ok as far as the automated stats
generator is concerned. I am frankly appalled that a book could be accepted
with 95% accuracy rating. Unless it is loaded with nonstandard
> dialect or with foreign words, 95% is hideously unreadable. Consider, if
you will, how unhappy you would be if you had dictation software for writing
documents and it gave you 95% accuracy. Would you find that
> acceptable? With today's ocr software, I find it amazing that anything
would be submitted that wasn't 99.something percent accurate, not counting
names and non-English or nonstandard words.
> Mary
>
>
>
>
>
Other related posts:
