[bksvol-discuss] Re: Quantity versus Quality

  • From: "Evan Reese" <mentat1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: <bksvol-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2006 13:33:08 -0700

I agree, but the standard is unenforceable.  If the majority of submitters and 
volunteers work hard to put up the best books they can, but a few put up junk, 
there's nothing I know of that can be done, short of Gustavo looking through 
every book personally.

Still, if validators reject lousy books, it might help to discourage poor 
submissions.  But it won't stop them if some validators do the bare minimum and 
pass on the poor submissions.

I guess that sounds discouraging, but I know of no way of totally eliminating 
bad-quality books from getting through.  Perhaps the best we can hope for is to 
reduce the proportion.  This is one instance where I would love to be proved 
wrong, of course.

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: k4zq 
  To: books ` list 
  Sent: Tuesday, August 22, 2006 7:52 AM
  Subject: [bksvol-discuss] Re: Quantity versus Quality


  Paula,

  I think the standard for Bookshare is primarily up to us.  If we as 
volunteers insist on a high standard, it will be so.

  Ernie
    ----- Original Message ----- 
    From: Paula and James Muysenberg 
    To: bksvol-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx 
    Sent: Tuesday, August 22, 2006 12:31 AM
    Subject: [bksvol-discuss] Re: Quantity versus Quality


    Ernie,

        I agree. I took a look at a book last night, which was rated Fair. It 
was something about linguistics, and has been on the Step 1 page for some time. 
The book fit the standard--it was readable, but it had lots of errors. I really 
wanted to reject it, but felt I couldn't, as long as Bookshare allows books of 
that quality. Of course, if it had been illegible, I would have rejected it, 
but the policy seems to be that we should let books through if we can still 
read them. I guess that if a student didn't have a scanner, and needed to read 
the book, this copy would do, but I cringe to imagine what a new subscriber to 
Bookshare would think!

        I hope Bookshare will soon eliminate the Fair category altogether.

    Paula

      ----- Original Message ----- 
      From: k4zq 
      To: books ` list 
      Sent: Monday, August 21, 2006 9:58 PM
      Subject: [bksvol-discuss] Quantity versus Quality


      I read a great deal of this thread when it was really being 
discussed--what should be the criteria for rejecting books?  

      While some held out for well done material, there were those who held 
that books with quite a few errors were acceptable, and should be left in the 
collection.

      One of the greatest problems facing American society (in my humble 
opinion) is that of dumbing down.  In other words, find the lowest common 
denominator possible and use that as a guiding star.

      With Bookshare, we have a golden opportunity to contribute to the reading 
material of print disabled people.  Yet, there are some who for their ease and 
comfort would say that anything that comes close to being legible is as good as 
we need.  Let me say that that's a bunch of rot (and I cleaned that up.)  Truth 
is, that when a thing is easy to accomplish, no one values it.  I for one value 
Bookshare, and I know some others do to.

      Guess (to make it brief) to say that a book is "fair with many errors but 
legible throughout," should in no wise be acceptable.  If that's so, we can 
just scan 'em and throw them up on the site.  The validation process is 
pointless!  

      One other point, why spend $1300 for scanning hardware and software if 
the quality of the reading material doesn't matter?  I sure won't.

      Guess I should apologize for such a windy e-mail, but I won't do that 
either.

      In closing, and to sum up, Boookshare can be a valuable source for books, 
if we want it that way, or it can be "gi go."

      Ernie


----------------------------------------------------------------------------


    No virus found in this incoming message.
    Checked by AVG Free Edition.
    Version: 7.1.405 / Virus Database: 268.11.3/423 - Release Date: 8/18/2006

Other related posts: