[bksvol-discuss] Re: Fiction By Best Selling Author & See Long Synopsis
- From: Tracy Carcione <carcione@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: bksvol-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Thu, 29 Apr 2004 08:59:26 -0400
Louise,
I'm quite willing to volunteer as a synopsis writer, if the submitter can
give me an idea of what the book is about. I don't want to read the whole
thing to figure it out, if all that's wanted is a synopsis.
Tracy
At 03:52 PM 4/28/04 -0500, you wrote:
>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:
