[bksvol-discuss] Re: Quantity versus Quality
- From: "k4zq" <k4zq@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <bksvol-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2006 13:58:19 -0400
Evan,
Perfection is unreachable in this plain of existence. All one can do is to
struggle to reach a higher consciousness.
Ernie
----- Original Message -----
From: Evan Reese
To: bksvol-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Tuesday, August 22, 2006 4:33 PM
Subject: [bksvol-discuss] Re: Quantity versus Quality
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
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.405 / Virus Database: 268.11.4/424 - Release Date: 8/21/2006
Other related posts:
