[bksvol-discuss] Re: Self-validation
- From: Carrie Karnos <ckarnos@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: bksvol-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Fri, 18 Jun 2004 12:18:02 -0700 (PDT)
When I submit a novel or an easy scan, I'm more than glad to have someone
else validate it, but if it's a complicated book, I'd rather validate it
myself. I validated my submission "Recommended Dietary Allowances"
because there were loads of graphs in it which the scanner messed up. I'm
validated "In the Kitchen with Rosie" because it had lots of side notes
and the recipe measurements had to be exact. And I'm validating "Baby
Boomers Guide to Caring for Aging Parents" because it too has side notes.
In all these cases, I took the book and made sure that the graphs, side
notes, etc were correct in the RTF file. Actually, I thought I was doing
other people a favor by not foisting a long difficult validation on them.
Also I don't understand why I can't validate my submissions as well as
other people's submissions. It's not like I wrote the books. I have no
vested interest in them. Being sighted, I get no credit for them. In
most cases, I haven't even read the books before nor do I want to. I
submit them because I think someone somewhere will enjoy reading them,
that's all.
My 2 cents, Carrie
--- Nolan Crabb <aa3go@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Rui warned against the urge to self validate. I completely concur!
>
> I've made a living editing my work and that of others for years. The
> harsh
> truth is, your own errors are much easier to miss, even if you've let
> that
> book sit up there and cool its digital heels for days. I guess the urge
> to
> self validate is a natural one, since people get submission credits and
> such that will help them pay for next year's subscription. 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,
> get it up there so others can enjoy it. But I won't. I'm too aware of
> how
> easy it is to skip errors in things you've either written or read. I
> think
> the checks and balances that exist here--the ones that encourage others
> to
> validate what you've submitted--are the way it should work. I realize
> others will challenge my position, suggesting that self validation is
> absolutely the only way some of the more esoteric titles will get
> approved. I disagree. The first book I ever validated was a Christian
> romance--decidedly not, not, not something I would normally want to read
>
> under any circumstances. Oddly enough, that's precisely the reason I
> chose
> it. I figured the material would be so new and different to me that I'd
> be
> more prone to catch errors. That book entered the Bookshare system with
> a
> "good" rating presumably provided by the submitter. I spent some time
> with
> the book, but today it carries an "excellent" rating, and it's now part
> of
> the collection.
>
> Please try not to misinterpret this, folks. I don't use it as an
> example
> to demonstrate how amazing I am. 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
> learn in years. I just find self validation a little scary, especially
> in
> light of rather strong messages lately which have called for higher
> quality
> scans and validations. There's no doubt we achieve higher quality
> validations if we don't do them ourselves.
>
> The quarterly magazine I edit goes through no fewer than four different
>
> edits before it ever sees the inside of our subscribers' mailboxes. I'm
>
> not advocating for absolute rigid perfection; we are volunteers, after
> all,
> who have lives. 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
> on the list, here's a little proposal: If you have a book that's been
> up
> there quite a while, I'll take yours and validate it, regardless of the
> subject or whatever, if you take mine and get it approved. It's called
> "The Casebook of Constance and Charlie Vol. 1," and it's 614 pages, so
> I'm
> sure that's discouraged more than one person from taking it. Obviously,
>
> this is one of those first-come first-accepted challenges. <smile>
>
> Again, I'm not desirous of offending any here. 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 :-)
>
>
>
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - Helps protect you from nasty viruses.
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
Other related posts:
