[bksvol-discuss] Re: Using Our Validation Resources Wisely

  • From: "Julia Kulak" <julia.kulak@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: <bksvol-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Fri, 23 Nov 2007 07:29:20 -0800

I agree with that. I try to have good scanns, but if something is wrong, I'd 
like to be aware of it so I can fix it for future book submitions. 
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Gary Petraccaro 
  To: bksvol-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx 
  Sent: Thursday, November 22, 2007 8:03 PM
  Subject: [bksvol-discuss] Re: Using Our Validation Resources Wisely

  I would only ask that if a book shows some types of problems, let the scanner 
know.  Especially if it's me.  I want to know if I'm missing something and if I 
overlook it, I won't know if I'm not told.
  Just my $.02.

    ----- Original Message ----- 
    From: Monica Willyard 
    To: bksvol-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx 
    Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2007 11:22 PM
    Subject: [bksvol-discuss] Using Our Validation Resources Wisely

    Hi, Elizabeth. You may have a point. New volunteers don't understand the 
rating system and how it actually works on step 1. Yet I keep thinking that we 
have a limited amount of resources in time and manpower. It seems to me that 
paying attention to sloppy submitters just encourages them to give us more 
messy work. It's like paying attention to the  child who won't do his 
schoolwork while ignoring the child who behaves well or at least tries to. Lots 
of schools do just that, and I think it's a backward strategy because people 
tend to respond to attention by doing more of what got them that attention. I 
think the people who actually put some care into their work deserve the reward 
of quick approval and an excellent rating. Unless a validater sees a book 
he/she really wants to read and work on, I think our time is best invested in 
processing readable books.  I think that as long as there are books rated 
excellent or good needing attention, the ones rated fair should sink to the 
bottom of the list until someone has a lot of free time and energy to rehab 
them. I have heard the argument that the poor scans come from people with older 
technology. Yet we have 3 volunteers that I know of who use Kurzweil 8 and who 
submit clean scans. They get the clean scans because they read what they submit 
and rescan pages where necessary. 

    If you're thinking I'm making a value judgment, you're right. I'm saying 
that, in myopinion, books that have been scanned and proofread are more worthy 
of immediate attention. As long as we have nearly 450 books on step 1, I think 
it's a waste of our resources to spend hours rehabbing a book that can only get 
to fair or good condition if we approve it.

    Monica Willyard

    E. wrote: 
      Folks this surely is another reason to clear poorly scanned books off 
step 1. What a shame if we lose a validator out of such frustration. So sorry 
you had trouble. 


      At 08:25 PM 11/21/2007, you wrote: 

            E I don't know if you dislike romances or not, but that's how it 
sounded in your message. I've rejected it, someone else can give it a shot, and 
that's it.  Thanks for the help.  I don't know f I'll bother doing this again. 

        __________ NOD32 2677 (20071122) Information __________ 

        This message was checked by NOD32 antivirus system. 

      To unsubscribe from this list send a blank Email to 
      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. 


    No virus found in this incoming message.
    Checked by AVG Free Edition. 
    Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.16.4/1145 - Release Date: 11/22/2007 
11:49 AM

Other related posts: