Sarah, you suggestions are very useful, but I must warn about one thing: the stright line junk character, i.e, | --or what looks like that. In some fonts, the lower-case l (el) . I made the mistake of replacing what looked like two straight line junk characters only to find that I'd replaced all the double els. It took me a long time to find the words from which they were missing and put them back. I made a few similar mistakes in the same book with other things, I think maybe "he" and "be." I've learned my lesson. (grin) Cindy -- Sarah Van Oosterwijck <curiousentity@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Some of us just like to read through books in their > entirety, fixing all > errors possible, but that doesn't mean you have to. > Of course books are > even more enjoyable when nearly perfect, but most > scans are readable without > this work. Try to choose books that seem to be of > excellent quality, so you > don't have to worry about the small number of errors > that will be left in > the book. Also, you might consider validating books > that many other people > wouldn't find that interesting, because you won't be > reading the whole, > possibly boring, book. ;-) A spellcheck, although > not completely infallible > will find a lot of errors that you can fix. > Another good thing to do, which is not very time > consuming, is to remove > junk characters by doing a search for each character > that should not appear > in any normal book and replace with nothing. > Strings of many spaces, | \ ^ > and ~ are just a few of the most common and annoying > characters. Stars, > bullets, and tabs can also be junk characters, but > you might not know if a > book should contain these or not, so don't remove > them unless you know they > don't belong. > I hope this helps, and is encouraging. > > Sarah Van Oosterwijck > http://home.earthlink.net/~netentity > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Paula Mack" <pmack1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > To: <bksvol-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Sent: Thursday, September 09, 2004 7:28 AM > Subject: [bksvol-discuss] Volunteers: how much work > is realistic > > > > Hi listers, > > > > I have been reading with some dismay the > discussion regarding book > validation. I volunteered my time, because I was > under the impression that > volunteers were needed. This is evident in the > amount of books awaiting > validation. I assumed that the job involved making > sure that all title, > author and copyright information were included and > that they were accurate. > I assumed that a spellcheck would be necessary to > eliminate the OCR errors > that crop up. The guidelines I was sent seemed to > indicate this, and in > fact, didn't even suggest spellcheck, although I > think that would be > necessary in even the most perfect scan. > > > > However, from this list and the other Bookshare > list, I am getting the > feeling that anything less than going over each word > and page number with a > fine-tooth comb is not wanted. Now, I can't speak > for any one else, but I > am extremely anxious to help out at bookshare. > However, when I scan my own > books, I don't expect perfection. When I read > Bookshare books, I don't > expect perfection. OCR, can not, at least at this > point in time, provide > perfection. If people have the time to go through > every character > comprising a book, that's fine. Personally, I have > a full-time job, a home, > and a family. I don't have that kind of time, and > frankly, if I did, I > don't think I'd want to spend it in this manner. As > an avid reader, I'd > rather see more books available, then have less > books to choose from and > have them be perfect. > > > > I would like the staff to make some kind of > statement regarding this > issue. If this kind of microscopic examination of > each book is desired, > then I suspect there may be less people willing to > volunteer. > > > > Personally, I still want to volunteer. However, > if following the > guidelines as they are, along with spellchecking is > not acceptable, then I > would like to know this. I certainly would not want > to cause problems by > releasing books that the staff does not deem > acceptable. however, if a > microscopic examination of each book is truly what > is wanted, I think this > needs to be made clear so that potential volunteers > can make an informed > decision. > > > > thanks, > > > > Paula > > > > > __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com