[bksvol-discuss] Re: Fiction By Best Selling Author & See Long Synopsis
- From: "Louise" <lougou@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <bksvol-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 28 Apr 2004 15:52:34 -0500
If we're going to quibble about synopsis, why not go through so many of the
books that were submitted in the past that contained the word "none" for the
short synopsis and nothing for the long synopsis and write synopses for such
books?
I have a folder containing more than three hundred books that I've scanned
in the past year that Bookshare doesn't have, but have not yet submitted yet
and if a synopsis is going to be a major issue, I just might keep them for
my own reading pleasure and not submit them at all. I have scanned some
books that have no description on the book jacket. Maybe a few volunteers
should volunteer to be synopsis writers? I myself know I'm no good at
writing my own synopsis. I'd like to see some input from the Bookshare
staff on this matter and then put it to rest once and for all. Louise
----- Original Message -----
From: "Pam Quinn" <quinns@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <bksvol-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Wednesday, April 28, 2004 2:07 PM
Subject: [bksvol-discuss] Re: Fiction By Best Selling Author & See Long
Synopsis
> Agreed. Those of us who are sharing high quality books are doing so
> because we want to, not because we feel any obligations. If we allow
> volunteers to start quibbling and cracking the whip, I for one would
> say to hell with it. I have enough books here to enjoy for several
> lifetimes and can scan more as I wish. But if it comes to having books
> rejected because of lack of page numbers, lack of personal preferences
> in synopsis, we need to change the rejection notices to include the
> reason for rejection at the very least. Above all else though,
> emphasis should be placed on quality, especially now that near perfect
> scans are no problem. I've seen some books on here that have a
> wonderful synopsis, page numbered accurately and what have you, but
> are virtually unreadable due to so many errors. If books such as these
> are a thing of the past, we're dooing great, I'd say.
>
> Pam
>
> On Wed, 28 Apr 2004 13:38:42 -0400, you wrote:
>
> >The quickest way to discourage me from submitting scanned books would be
to suggest that my efforts were being rejected because somebody didn't like
my synopses. I would simply take my tent and go home. I do not know whose
job it should be to assure that such things are handled correctly and share
Guido's disaffection with useless short summaries. However, let us not
suggest the firing squad for what is, compared to the overall effort, a
misdemeanor punishable by an email slap on the wrist, perhaps.
> >
> >Paul
> >
> >Paul Edwards, Director
> >Access Services, North Campus
> >Phone: (305) 237-1146
> >Fax: (305-237-1831
> >TTY: (305) 237-1413
> >Email: pedwards@xxxxxxxx
> >home email: edwpaul@xxxxxxxxxxx
> >
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: E. [mailto:thoth93@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> >Sent: Wednesday, April 28, 2004 12:18 PM
> >To: bksvol-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >Subject: [bksvol-discuss] Re: Fiction By Best Selling Author & See Long
> >Synopsis
> >
> >
> >I agree. What is stopping a volunteer from coming up with a one or two
> >sentence brief description? There also seem to be a lot of submissions
> >with no long or short descriptions at all. How can you scan a book and
> >know absolutely nothing about it? Please take a moment and come up with
a
> >short description at the very least. Usually you can find enough from
the
> >scanned book jacket info to do this even if you have no intention of
> >reading the book.
> >
> >While on my rant "romance" is not a short dexcription I find
> >satisfactory. I even have trouble with "historical romance". I do like
> >"historical romance set in eighteenth century America" as an example. I
> >similarly dislike "science fiction" as a description. Surely a little
more
> >info can be gleaned from somewhere by the submitter!!!
> >
> >E.
> >
> >
> >At 09:27 AM 4/28/2004, you wrote:
> >
> >>In spite of the repeated please from several of us, I keep finding glib
> >>or useless short synopsis in recent submissions. Quite frankly I do not
> >>understand which part of the word USEFUL some volunteers have a problem
> >>comprehending.
> >>
> >>In particular, in today's fresh crop of glib contributions I see
> >>
> >>The Golden Cup by Delva Plain,
> >>
> >>anonymously submitted by a "Bookshare Volunteer", whose short synopsis
> >>proudly states: Fiction by best-selling author.
> >>
> >>Another title,
> >>
> >>Holding Out by Ann O'Falk
> >>
> >>was submitted by 'Louise' and bears the totally useless short
description:
> >>"see long synopsis".
> >>
> >>In both cases, a meaningful long description is available for these
> >>books. Is there any reason why a shorter version of these descriptions
> >>was not inserted in the short description field? Book submitters should
> >>ensure that their own submissions include meaning ful short
> >>descriptions. Reviewers should catch omitted or meaningless short
> >>descriptions and repair them appropriately.
> >>
> >>Ultimately please remember that we volunteers are performing a service
> >>for our customers, who deserve the best fruit of our efforts.
> >>
> >>I must conclude with a recommendation to the Bookshare staff that all
> >>further reviewed/approved books containing trivial short descriptions be
> >>routinely rejected by the administrator.
> >>
> >>Thank you for listening,
> >>
> >>Guido
> >>
> >>Guido D. Corona
> >>IBM Accessibility Center, Austin Tx.
> >>IBM Research,
> >>Phone: (512) 838-9735
> >>Email: guidoc@xxxxxxxxxxx
> >>
> >>Visit my weekly Accessibility WebLog at:
> >>http://www-3.ibm.com/able/weblog/corona_weblog.html
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
Other related posts:
