[bksvol-discuss] Re: My nickel's worth--quality control
- From: "Gary Wunder" <gwunder@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <bksvol-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 18 Jun 2004 09:10:10 -0500
I agree. As a kid I tried my hand at dish washing and wanted to
be fast at it. My mother was encouraged by my enthusiasm but put
back things which still had grease on the sides or little specs
which were perfectly feelable. She told me she was glad I was
helping to wash but the outcome had to be that the dish was
clean.
Now I'm not making a case for perfect scans, but nothing is more
frustrating than to get into the middle of a book and then
realize that suddenly I am hearing two columns of the book read
side by side. These books have never been read by anyone either
the scanner or the validator or they wouldn't appear like this.
Someone, be it the scanner or validator, it seems to me, has to
take responsibility for a read through. If it is the scanner,
then the validators job is easier. If it is not the scanner, then
the validator needs to be warned that he/she needs to read cover
to cover.
Just my opinion, and presented respectfully I hope.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Susan Lumpkin" <slumpkin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <bksvol-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Thursday, June 17, 2004 10:36 PM
Subject: [bksvol-discuss] Re: My nickel's worth--quality control
Hi Liz,
I may get bashed too, but as a validator only, I too would prefer
quality over quanity!
Susan
-----Original Message-----
.From: "Liz Halperin"<lizzers@xxxxxxxxxxx>
.Sent: 6/17/04 4:04:12 PM
.To: "bksvol-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx"<bksvol-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
.Subject: [bksvol-discuss] My nickel's worth--quality control
.
.Ok, I suspect I may get bashed, but here goes anyway:
.
.I wish everyone would just SLOW DOWN. There seems to be this
frenzy to
.get books into the collection, and less care on their quality.
As a
.braille reader, I know I am in the minority, but my patience for
sloppy
.books is low.
.
.When I scan a book I am very careful to send a clean copy up. I
don't
.expect the validator to have to do much of anything except make
sure no
.corruption of the file has occurred. I am proud of quality over
.quantity.
.
.I have been doing some validating and there have been a few
books
.equally clean as those I submit. They are a joy to validate.
Most have
.problems. I fix what I can. Books are submitted without the ISBN
listed
.(even though it's right there), sections missing, whole messed
up pages.
.When I am faced with many blank pages and then text pages run
together
.and too many spelling errors and character errors, I feel no
guilt to
.reject the book. It's not worth spending so many hours on.
Better to get
.it rescanned in a better version. When I finally validate
something,
.it's clean and ready to go. Any problems after that are from the
.Bookshare conversion processes.
.
.With over 500 books waiting for validation, I wish there would
be a
.moratorium on scanning submissions. When there was too much
backlog at
.the Bookshare end, they made a concerted effort to get caught
up. It's
.now OUR end that needs the effort, the volunteers.
.
.The two lists, books-volunteer-discuss and books-discuss, are
very very
.busy. What if all the time spent reading and writing on the
lists was
.spent on validating, for awhile, at least?
.
.What if scanners made an effort to send up better quality? What
if
.validators had better quality to start with and so could approve
faster
.and cleaner? What if we humans went beyond spellcheck and made
sure that
.other errors were caught? Errors such as "form" for "from" and
"end" for
."and" and stuff like that? What if we went for quality over
quantity
.for awhile?
.
.Liz in Seattle
.
.Liz Halperin
.Seattle, WA
.lizzers@xxxxxxxxxxx
.
.
.
.
Other related posts:
