[bksvol-discuss] Picture descriptions
- From: "Julie Morales" <inlovewithchrist@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <bksvol-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 23 May 2005 21:38:16 -0700
Hi, Cindy. I'm sure some out there would appreciate those detailed
descriptions. Maybe some of them might be too detailed for some, but for
someone who has never had any vision, sometimes the added detail helps, and
sometimes, it adds to the story. You're doing a great thing by trying to add
descriptions to those books, so however they turn out, I know everyone is
grateful. Take care.
Julie Morales
inlovewithchrist@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Windows/MSN Messenger (but not email):
mercy0421@xxxxxxxxxxx
Skype: mercy0421
----- Original Message -----
From: "Cindy" <popularplace@xxxxxxxxx>
To: <bksvol-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Monday, May 23, 2005 10:16 AM
Subject: [bksvol-discuss] Re: Download Stats
Thanks, Sue. I'll accept double what I'm getting now
(0 since I'm not a member--grin). But I do worry that
my descriptions are perhaps too detailed and/or not
clear enough. I suppose the reader can delete or
ignore whatever he or she wants).
Cindy
--- siss52 <siss52@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> It seems that Cindy should get paid more for doing
> all those Caldecott
> descriptions and others she has done... In some
> cases the descriptions MAKE
> the books.
>
> Sue S.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Charlene" <caota@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: <bksvol-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Monday, May 23, 2005 2:21 AM
> Subject: [bksvol-discuss] Re: Download Stats
>
>
> You're probably right about figuring out how to
> determine those sorts of
> things. You've got a good idea, though, about
> giving validators more
> credit when they take time to clean up some of the
> books that are poorly
> scanned.
>
> Charlene
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: bksvol-discuss-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:bksvol-discuss-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On
> Behalf Of Julie Morales
> Sent: Sunday, May 22, 2005 7:10 PM
> To: bksvol-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: [bksvol-discuss] Re: Download Stats
>
>
> Hi, Charlene. This is a good idea in theory, but I'd
> be interested to
> know
> how they'd work it out. No matter how they do it,
> there are going to be
> people who don't believe they get enough credit for
> what they do. I
> think
> the least they could do is, if a validator takes a
> poorly-scanned book
> off
> the Downloads page and makes it into a good-quality
> book, they
> definitely
> should get more than 50 cents. I don't think many,
> if any, people would
> argue that, but I think it would be hard to decide:
> Did a submitter
> really
> spend a lot of time cleaning up a book before they
> submitted it, or did
> it
> just scan well? Take care.
> Julie Morales
> inlovewithchrist@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Windows/MSN Messenger (but not email):
> mercy0421@xxxxxxxxxxx
> Skype: mercy0421
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Charlene" <caota@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: <bksvol-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Sunday, May 22, 2005 5:02 PM
> Subject: [bksvol-discuss] Re: Download Stats
>
>
> For whatever it's worth, when I was at the NFB
> convention last summer
> and saw Jim Frukterman (big appologies for
> misspelling the last name!!!)
> I asked him if it would be possible to consider
> increasing the amount of
> credit given to people who make the effort to clean
> up their books
> before sobmitting them. I've spent heaven knows how
> many hours cleaning
> up books, and if anyone's scanned cookbooks, you
> know the time involved!
> (smile!) It's all about what a person's motivation
> is. Jim said this
> was at least something to thik about. And I haven't
> seen or heard
> anything regarding different levels of credit since.
>
> Charlene
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: bksvol-discuss-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:bksvol-discuss-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On
> Behalf Of Cindy
> Sent: Sunday, May 22, 2005 10:09 AM
> To: bksvol-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: [bksvol-discuss] Re: Download Stats
>
>
> But then, Mike, perhaps they (i,e, those people who
> scan for themselves and don't fix them before
> submission) shouldn't submit them. They get $2.50
> credit toward their membership, and the work, or
> lack
> of it they do, isn't worth it --whereas if anyone
> bothers to validate those books and fix them, that
> person only gets 50 cents credit and does much more
> work. I don't know whether, if a person's
> submission
> is rejected, that person still gets the credit for
> the submission or
> not. In some cases, the book may not be rejected for
> quite some time, so
> I suspect it would be hard to take away the credit.
> It seems to me that if a person is scanning
> books
> for his/her own pleasure reading and doesn't care
> about making it at least minimally readable for
> other
> people he/she shouldn't submit the book.
>
> Cindy
>
> > (2) Many people scan books for themselves for
> their
> > own reading as a
> > primary intent. Submitting it to BookShare is a
> > secondary intent.
> > Hence, the person doesn't wish to devote
> > extra time or effort in preparing the book
> > and BookShare receives it "as is."
> ...
> >
> > Both are valid approaches to scanning and
> > sub hence, we
> > shouldn't fault submitters for material submitted
> > prepared for their own
> > use that they wish to share (hence the name
> > BookShare).
> >...
> > And with literally hundreds of romance novels
> > published monthly, and if
> > someone wanted to read many of them for
> themselves,
> > I can understand
> > why they'd take the fast unchecked approach to
> > scanning them for
> > themselves.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Mail
> Stay connected, organized, and protected. Take the
> tour:
> http://tour.mail.yahoo.com/mailtour.html
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Yahoo! Mail
Stay connected, organized, and protected. Take the tour:
http://tour.mail.yahoo.com/mailtour.html
Other related posts:
