[bksvol-discuss] Re: Quality checks procedure -- was WRe: Re: Self-validation
- From: The Pardees <fpardee@xxxxxxxxxx>
- To: bksvol-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Sat, 19 Jun 2004 11:35:31 -0400
Guido,
I hate to reveal the depth of my ignorance, and as no one else has asked
the question, it must be deeper than I thought.
What is the difference between a double single quote and a single double
quote and how can I tell them apart and replace one with the other. My
speech engine just says quote..
Jim
At 01:55 PM 6/18/04 -0500, you wrote:
>
> I found that the following set of checks tend to generate rather high
>results:
>
>
> sample every 20 pages.
>
> works best if the book uses the word 'chapter' or something else to search
>for.
>
> Definitely tedious, as I do it on each and every page.
>
> I merge it with the last word on the previous page if appropriate.
>
> These will let you find all sorts of words that were split at end of
>lines or at end of pages and can be repaired.
>
> Remove manually each occurrence of these clustered nasty things as
>appropriate.
>
> Remove or repair manually as required.
> we can copy/paste them in the find dialogue to search for them in the
>document.
>
> Do each change manually as appropriate.
>
> in most cases that should be changed to I followed by apostrophes.
>
> In most cases that is part of a '11, which should become an 'll.
>
> Do a mass replacement of double single quote with single double quote.
>
> you may be deleting someone's middle initial.
>
>
>
>Hope this helps.
>
>Guido D. Corona
> Austin Tx.
> IBM Research,
> (512) 838-9735
> Email: guidoc@xxxxxxxxxxx
>
> Visit my weekly Accessibility WebLog at:
> http://www-3.ibm.com/able/weblog/corona_weblog.html
>
>
>
>
> <>
>Sent by: bksvol-discuss-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx 06/18/2004 12:23 PM Please
>respond to
> bksvol-discuss
> To bksvol-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx cc Subject [bksvol-discuss] Re:
>Self-validation
>
>
>
>
> I completely concur!
>
> The harsh
> truth is, your own errors are much easier to miss, even if you've let that
> I guess the urge to
> self validate is a natural one, since people get submission credits and
> I have a Kate
> Wilhelm mystery that's been up there for some time now, and I want very
> much to just validate the thing and get the credits and more importantly,
> I'm too aware of how
> I think
> the checks and balances that exist here--the ones that encourage others to
> I realize
> others will challenge my position, suggesting that self validation is
> absolutely the only way some of the more esoteric titles will get
> The first book I ever validated was a Christian
> romance--decidedly not, not, not something I would normally want to read
> Oddly enough, that's precisely the reason I chose
> I figured the material would be so new and different to me that I'd be
> That book entered the Bookshare system with a
>"" I spent some time with
>"" rating, and it's now part of
> the collection.
>
> I don't use it as an example
> Very nearly all of you have been at the
> submission and validation end of this far longer than have I, and you're
> doubtless the ultimate experts, having forgotten more in a day than I will
> I just find self validation a little scary, especially in
> light of rather strong messages lately which have called for higher quality
> There's no doubt we achieve higher quality
> validations if we don't do them ourselves.
>
> magazine I edit goes through no fewer than four different
> I'm
> not advocating for absolute rigid perfection; we are volunteers, after all,
> But self validation is an excellent way to increase the
> number of potential errors into the system.
>
> So that I don't totally come across here as being the loud mouthed whiner
> If you have a book that's been up
> there quite a while, I'll take yours and validate it, regardless of the
> It's called
>"" and it's 614 pages, so I'm
> Obviously,
><>
>
> But in light of recent
> messages that have called for higher standards in terms of better quality
> scans and better validations, redoubling our resolve to let others validate
> our work is probably one good way to ensure the increased quality of the
> collection.
>
> Best Regards,
>
> Nolan, who is dawning his fire-retardant e-mail-reading suit in preparation
> for all that indignant mail from self validators :-)
>
>
>
> --- Incoming mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus
>system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.699 / Virus Database: 456 -
>Release Date: 6/4/04
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.699 / Virus Database: 456 - Release Date: 6/4/04
Other related posts:
