[bksvol-discuss] Re: Using Our Validation Resources Wisely
- From: "Cindy Ray" <cindyray@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: <bksvol-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 23 Nov 2007 07:25:25 -0600
If you hear a sentence and the "to" vs. "too" is wrong, and you are
half-bright, you will catch that kind of mistake.
Cindy Lou Ray. Each day is a new adventure.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Grandma Cindy" <popularplace@xxxxxxxxx>
To: <bksvol-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Thursday, November 22, 2007 11:21 PM
Subject: [bksvol-discuss] Re: Using Our Validation Resources Wisely
I agree with you two (and E, here's an example of what
I was talking about before about homonyms; if I wrote
t o o nstead of t w o my sentence would have a whole
different meaning; from what you say I gather that a
Braille reader would know the difference and not make
such a mistake, but a sound reader probably wouldn't).
When I finish the books I have, I'll check some of
those marked Fair--especially since the BSOs have been
cleared. smile
G.Cindy
--- Monica Willyard <rhyami@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> You've got a good point, Elizabeth. I could go for
> that plan. Sorting is
> different from a save every book campaign. I was
> picturing spending
> countless hours on cleaning marginal books and
> should have checked with
> you to see if that's what you had in mind. Since
> some of us are
> experienced validaters, it does make sense that we
> take a look and see
> what can actually be salvaged and what should be
> rejected. It isn't fair
> to ask a new volunteer to do that. I just don't want
> to do anything that
> would encourage further submissions of more
> completely illegible books.
>
> For those of you who are new here, it may sound
> harsh or snobbish when
> Elizabeth and I talk about rejecting certain scans.
> There is a history
> here that may not seem obvious to you. Knowing about
> it may change how
> you see this discussion. We have a couple of
> submitters who regularly
> scan and submit books without reading a single word
> to see how their
> scan came out. They submit books with literally page
> after page of
> jibberish, books with whole chapters missing, and
> sometimes even submit
> a book of one title that ends up being a completely
> different book.
> These books are done by the same couple people over
> and over again. They
> set the rating on their scan as fair and usually
> don't provide a
> synopsis or even specify which category a book goes
> in. Just to keep us
> on our toes, one of these people submits a readable
> scan every once in
> awhile. Several of us have offered them help in
> private email, on the
> list, and even by phone. Their response to us has
> been that as long as
> Bookshare will accept their books, they'll keep
> submitting them. Some of
> us have spent a great deal of time trying to fix
> these books, believing
> that these people would submit better scans as they
> learned to use their
> software. When these people told us that they have
> no intention of
> changing the quality of what they submit, we began
> to feel discouraged
> and then very frustrated because there are so many
> of these books. Now
> most of us won't even try taking one of these scans
> because we dread
> what we'll get stuck with.
>
> I'm still sort of recovering after my last really
> messy validation. It
> was right on the border of being rejected, and it
> only ended up going
> through because I found a print copy and rescanned
> at least a third of
> the pages. No amount of credit would induce me to
> spend that much time
> and effort on a book with so many errors again. It's
> faster to rescan
> the book completely. As Mickey has pointed out in
> the past, there are
> some books in very good condition in that pile on
> step 1, so some
> sorting does need to take place. Getting rid of the
> ones that are
> unreadable will let us focus on the ones that are.
>
> Monica Willyard
>
> E. wrote:
> > I am suggesting that we validators go through the
> books by submitters
> > with poor records as quickly as possible. Reject
> those which need
> > rejecting as quickly as possible so new validators
> do not get stuck
> > with them. Get staff clear that we validators are
> only willing to put
> > in so much time on one book when the submitter
> could have given a
> > clean scan with a little up front care. Remember
> about a tenth of the
> > books on step one were from such poor submitters
> in the recent past.
> > I have not checked lately. Cleaning up step 1
> rapidly means less of
> > such books for new validators to stumble upon and
> find frustrating.
> >
> > E.
>
>
____________________________________________________________________________________
Get easy, one-click access to your favorites.
Make Yahoo! your homepage.
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
To unsubscribe from this list send a blank Email to
bksvol-discuss-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
put the word 'unsubscribe' by itself in the subject line. To get a
list of available commands, put the word 'help' by itself in the
subject line.
__________ NOD32 2681 (20071123) Information __________
This message was checked by NOD32 antivirus system.
http://www.eset.com
To unsubscribe from this list send a blank Email to
bksvol-discuss-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
put the word 'unsubscribe' by itself in the subject line. To get a list of
available commands, put the word 'help' by itself in the subject line.
Other related posts:
