I think it's better if there's less clutter on the page. Sure, things
might get through easier butit would put more clutter on the page of which
we don't need with 360 books stuck in the queue.
Ner At 09:39 AM 5/1/2004, you wrote:
Now that I know people prefer files in rtf, I will use that instead of kes. I believe there are four or five books I've submitted almost a month ago in kes. They're already pretty well edited, but have not been validated yet. As that I still have the original kes file, I don't mind saving and resubmitting them in rtf so they can get through faster, but I thought having two copies on the validation page might create too much clutter. I am not a validater, so don't know how a lot of that background stuff works. Should I bother? or not? Sorry for so many dopy inquiries recently. And thanks. Tiff
----- Original Message ----- From: "E." <thoth93@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> To: <bksvol-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> Sent: Saturday, May 01, 2004 10:12 AM Subject: [bksvol-discuss] Re: Submission formats are barriers to validation
> If you have the proper software to read Kes or Arc my understanding is that > you can improve the scan if folks keep their images. In practice, this > means a very Kes file to upload. > > Some folks upload a book in two formats, one Kes or Arc, and the second > time in the .rtf form. This does mean double submissions on the step 1 > page but also leads to greater flexibility in who can download the book. > > E.
Noel Romey Arkansas, USA View my insights at my live journal: http://djner.livejournal.com
