[bksvol-discuss] Re: Validators

  • From: "Kenneth A. Cross" <crossk@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: <bksvol-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Thu, 6 Oct 2005 21:29:27 -0400

Actually, all you can imply from the page numbers, chapter headers, etc.
being present is that the stripper hasn't yet done its work.
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Sarah Van Oosterwijck" <curiousentity@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <bksvol-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Thursday, October 06, 2005 5:28 PM
Subject: [bksvol-discuss] Re: Validators


> Yes, as sure as anyone can ever be.
>
> Sarah Van Oosterwijck
> Assistive Technology Trainer
> http://home.earthlink.net/~netentity
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "siss52" <siss52@xxxxxxx>
> To: <bksvol-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Thursday, October 06, 2005 1:53 PM
> Subject: [bksvol-discuss] Re: Validators
>
>
> >
> > If the author and title headings, aas well as the chapter headings are
at
> > the tops of pages, and the page numbers are there as well, can one
assume
> > MS
> > Word is not messing things up?  That is, as long as nothing seems to be
> > missing from the text?
> >
> > Sue S.
> >
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Jana Jackson" <jana@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > To: <bksvol-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > Sent: Thursday, October 06, 2005 1:28 PM
> > Subject: [bksvol-discuss] Re: Validators
> >
> >
> >> Another thing that helps validators is the comments left by the
> >> submitter.
> >> It's very helpful if a submitter leaves comments explaining the work
> >> that
> >> has already been done, i.e. chapter headings protected, junk characters
> >> removed, etc.
> >>
> >> Jana
> >> ----- Original Message -----
> >> From: "E." <thoth93@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >> To: <bksvol-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >> Sent: Thursday, October 06, 2005 7:15 AM
> >> Subject: [bksvol-discuss] Re: Validators
> >>
> >>
> >> > Then we need to get the submitter and validator to speak to each
other
> > so
> >> > some books at least can be tracked.  The two of them can find out
what
> >> > software and conditions existed at all stages of the document's life.
> > We
> >> > can learn how to get this to work if we analyze specific cases.
> >> >
> >> > E.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > At 08:12 AM 10/6/2005, you wrote:
> >> >
> >> >>Tracy
> >> >>
> >> >>I am sure that you have improved the quality of many books -- that
was
> > not
> >> >>my point.
> >> >>Rather, and I speak from observation, I am suggesting that it is
> > possible
> >> >>that a validator can hurt and not assist the quality of a book in
some
> >> >>instances.
> >> >>There is more to a book than every word perfect.  There are things
> >> >>such
> > as
> >> >>pagination being messed up by a word processor perhaps not formatted
> >> >>to
> >> >>handle the way the book is,
> >> >>an overzealous individual stripping page numbers or protection
> >> >>thereof,
> >> >>and all the rest.
> >> >>Yes, the BookShare stripper is overzealous also, as is any automated
> > tool;
> >> >>but the truth is that we, as validators, too can cause problems
> >> >>(unintentionally, of course)
> >> >>as can other individuals in the whole process.
> >> >>I am a validator too so, in my comments, I am criticizing myself as
> >> >>much
> >> >>as anyone.
> >> >>And as this is a continual learning process, I am merely suggesting
> >> >>that
> >> >>we can learn from what happens to books and should occasionally study
> > our
> >> >>work, as it appears in the collection, to see if it comes
> >> >>out in the form we expected.
> >> >>Usually, all is fine; but there are the occasions when the end result
> >> >>is
> >> >>more than disappointing.
> >> >>
> >> >>My second point, Tracy, is that a lot of books need little or no work
> >> >>as
> >> >>the submitter has gone through great pains in preparation.
> >> >>Respect that, I say, and treat those as straightforward validations
> > noting
> >> >>any comments left as what may need to be done.
> >> >>Many submitters too take great pride in their work and feel let down
> > when
> >> >>that
> >> >>book they spent extra hours to get it just right has it run through a
> > word
> >> >>processing program that reformats every page so that the original
> > benefits
> >> >>are negated.
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>why, when I scan, should I spend many extra hours getting things
> >> >>"right"
> >> >>(as I see it) if, in the end, it is for naught!
> >> >>And I have had other submitters privately lament what has happened to
> >> >>their work -- and it goes beyond the stripper -- as an apparent
result
> > of
> >> >>something going amiss (possibly even unknown to the validator)
> >> >>as part of the process.
> >> >>
> >> >>If my work as a careful submitter means nothing, perhaps I should
> >> >>begin
> >> >>submitting raw scans of books done in an hour rather than spending
> >> >>days
> >> >>getting it ready!
> >> >>
> >> >>I am criticizing no one in particular!  My msg is mainly directed at
> >> >>new
> >> >>validators to be careful in what they are doing as they can possibly
> >> >>do
> >> >>harm as well as much good -- and likely they will do more of the
> >> >>latter
> >> >>and none of the former.
> >> >>Also, if you feel offended as a validator, how do you believe
> >> >>submitters
> >> >>who get sniped at on this list, if they learn of it directly or
> >> >>indirectly, react.
> >> >>They probably feel unappreciated too.
> >> >>
> >> >>My comments are meant as general constructive ones much as and in the
> > same
> >> >>spirit as Elizabeth has recently offered hers.
> >> >>She has given me plenty of food for thought, and that is what we all
> > need
> >> >>as we try to improve both the art of submitting or validating.
> >> >>
> >> >>And if I haven't publicly already said this, Thanks, Elizabeth, for
> >> >>addressing the issues have.  Most of the time I agree with you,
> > sometimes
> >> >>I don't; but I always appreciate your directness and candor and
> >> >>honesty
> >> >>and know you don't offer them with negativity but in the hopeful
> >> >>spirit
> >> >>that we can learn and improve.
> >> >>And what I offer is in the same vein.
> >> >>
> >> >>                 Mike
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>  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.
> >> >
> >> > 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.
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >>  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.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> > 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.
> >
> >
> >
> > -- 
> > No virus found in this incoming message.
> > Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
> > Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.11.13/123 - Release Date:
> > 10/6/2005
> >
> >
>
>  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.
>

 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: