[bksvol-discuss] Re: Pearl by Tabitha King
- From: Carrie Karnos <ckarnos@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: bksvol-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Thu, 7 Aug 2008 19:20:51 -0700 (PDT)
Hi gang,
Just to set the record straight, probably 80% of the books that I approve with
an excellent rating have got a few junk characters or scannos in them. But
since the vast majority of pages are fine, I let the errors go. Amber just
re-edited and re-uploaded Pearl to the approval queue. The book is much
better, it doesn't have nearly the number of junk characters that it did
before, but because Amber wanted to be told if there were any other junk
characters, I'm going through the book with a fine-tooth comb, looking for any
and all errors. I'm on page 86 out of 350 and I have found 13 errors so far.
Most of them are trivial, but since she wanted to know, I'm doing this for her.
If I return all books that have any errors at all in them, I'd be returning 80%
of the approved books for more editing. Do you all want this? Do you want 100%
perfect books? I try to make the bestsellers perfect, but I'm a deranged
perfectionist, as we all know.
How's this for a compromise? If you're happy with me letting some errors go
through with your books, no need to say anything. If you want me to return your
books for more editing if I find over,... let's say 10, errors, then tell me
you want me to do a super-check of your books. It will require lots more work
on both your part and on my part, so think carefully before you sign up for
this.
[I have to say at this point that there are several validators who always
upload books with fewer than 10 errors. Whenever I see their names, I breathe a
sigh of relief because I know their books will have no junk characters, no
scannos, no missing pages, no duplicate pages, no unwieldy font sizes, no weird
formatting, no messed-up fractions or charts or maps, just page after page of
beautiful text. Dave Russell, Marilyn Beasley, our summer intern Shuqiao Song,
the tag team of Louise Gourdoux and Jim Baugh - and I'm sure there are others
who I can't think of right now. They all do beautiful work.]
Carrie
----- Original Message ----
From: Ann McCay <annmccay@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: bksvol-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Friday, August 8, 2008 10:34:51 AM
Subject: [bksvol-discuss] Re: Pearl by Tabitha King
I would have wanted, as a submitter, to be told, and I'd
certainly have wanted to fix the book. I would have been upset if I were not
given that option and everybody else's weight into not having the submitter
have
the option to work with the problem was what had been
done.
________________________________
From: bksvol-discuss-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:bksvol-discuss-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Carrie
Karnos
Sent: Thursday, August 07, 2008 5:22 PM
To: bksvol-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [bksvol-discuss] Re: Pearl by
Tabitha King
Hi Sue,
When I return a book for more editing, I have 2 options. I
can return the book that the original person submitted, or I can return the
validated copy. 99% of the time I return the validated copy, retaining all the
changes that the validator made. Only when the validator deletes all the page
breaks in a book (as happened last week) or when the validator deletes some
pages or something drastic like that, do I return the original book from the
submitter. Given that I can retain all the validation changes, would you like
me
to return the book for more editing?
Looks like there are 2 votes for more
editing, and no votes for the other options. This means I should be even more
fussy than I already am. That's fine with me, I would rather allow only
well-validated books into the collection, but I'm afraid that the volunteer
group will start a mutiny if I return 3 out of every 10 books in the approval
queue instead of 1 out of every 10 books like I do now (I'm guessing at these
numbers - I haven't kept track, to be honest). Okay, unless I hear otherwise, I
will go into super-fussy mode :-)
Carrie
-----
Original Message ----
From: siss52 <siss52@xxxxxxxxxxx>
To:
bksvol-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Friday, August 8, 2008 8:48:41
AM
Subject: [bksvol-discuss] Re: Pearl by Tabitha King
Hi Carrie,
I woould vote against returning it for more editing
since the copy kicked back would be the submitter's work only, not the book
after validation.
Therefore, may I make another suggestion?
Could you return the book to Step 1 in the RTF file that was uploaded to the
approval queue, with a comment telling what is wrong and requesting more
editing?
Just my thoughts,
Sue S.
-----
Original Message -----
From: Carrie Karnos
To: bksvol-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Thursday, August 07, 2008 5:10 PM
Subject: [bksvol-discuss] Re: Pearl by Tabitha King
I changed the book rating from excellent to good when I approved it because
there are some junk characters on some pages (like the very last page in the
book). If there were just a few junk characters, I'd leave it as excellent. If
there were loads, I'd return it for more editing. This book was right on the
fence. So my question to the group is: what do you want me to do when a book
has
some junk characters, more than a few but less than loads? The choices
are:
1) leave it as excellent
2) return it for more editing
3) change
the rating to good
Have I missed another option?
What's your
vote?
Thanks! Carrie
-----
Original Message ----
From: Amber Wallenstein
<amber.wallens@xxxxxxxxx>
To: bksvol-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent:
Friday, August 8, 2008 8:03:40 AM
Subject: [bksvol-discuss] Pearl by Tabitha
King
Hi all:
Did anyone on this list validate Pearl by Tabitha
King? I worked really hard on it, and I noticed it had a "good" rating,
instead of an "excellent" rating. Does anyone know why? I always want to
improve my scans and I'm baffled why this gets a "good" rating. It has a
lot of dialogue but that's all I can think of.
Thanks.
Amber
Book blog:
http://community.livejournal.com/book_cuddler/
I have
accepted a seat in the House of Representatives, and thereby have consented to
my own ruin, to your ruin, and to the ruin of our children. I give
you this
warning that you may prepare your mind for your fate.
John Adams
E-Mail: amber.wallens@xxxxxxxxx
__________
NOD32 3338 (20080807) Information __________
This message was checked by
NOD32 antivirus system.
http://www.eset.com
Other related posts:
